350R VS Z/28

[thePill]

:frusty: Google image searching brought up the first 7 as those numbers listed. I didn't omit dynos below 370whp.

That's fine...

None of that helps explain why an SS is just as good or better than the C7 in this area. The transaxle is simply a large advantage in eliminating parasitic drivetrain losses... Using 91 Octane for these results is also a big variable... not many Dyno's done with 91.


(Sorry for the typos, hands freezing from TrT)

Sponsored

 

[thePill]

LS7 C6 Z06s dyno around 450-460whp on dynojets
LS7 Z28s (rare) dyno around 455whp & 469whp on dynojets

LT1 C7s dyno around 415whp on dynojets
LT1 Camaro dynoed around 405whp on a dynojet

LS3 C6s dyno around 380whp (avg of first 7 I found in a search)
LS3 Camaros dyno around 376whp (avg of first 6 I found)

Seems pretty straightforward. The numbers are pretty similar given all of the variances in temperature, fuel, the cars themselves, etc...

All the RWHP figures you gave are all the best case scenario on the best runs. Even then, the LS7 Dyno's you gave are hot... The LS7 made 435-450RWHP and many of the dyno's that were close to 450 were Z06 cars... The z28 does not lose 7% to the wheels... 11% sure, 7% not so sure...

Even the 376RWHP you provided leaves 12.5% and that is some of the best Dyno's I've seen.

376RWHP out of 425 is around 12.5%... They can go as low as 360RWHP... or 14.5%...

 

[cosmo]

All the RWHP figures you gave are all the best case scenario on the best runs. Even then, the LS7 Dyno's you gave are hot... The LS7 made 435-450RWHP and many of the dyno's that were close to 450 were Z06 cars... The z28 does not lose 7% to the wheels... 11% sure, 7% not so sure...

Even the 376RWHP you provided leaves 12.5% and that is some of the best Dyno's I've seen.

...but even those 376 are realistic. They have occurred. That shows that the transmission can get to low parasitic losses.

Unless there is a LARGE difference in dyno testing, such as the 1999 Cobra, there isn't an issue. You're talking a few percentage points. The Z28, yeah, something is weird there. But the new Camaro is fine.

This whole argument is stupid anyways. Chassis dynos should be only used for tuning. That's it. There are way too many variables for an honest comparison between different dynos at different locations on different days. Trying to point out a ringer Camaro due to dyno tests is pointless and besides the point. The reviews are coming in. Everyone is pretty much pointing to the Camaro being superior, I haven't seen one review favor the Mustang overall.

 

[thePill]

...but even those 376 are realistic. They have occurred. That shows that the transmission can get to low parasitic losses.

Unless there is a LARGE difference in dyno testing, such as the 1999 Cobra, there isn't an issue. You're talking a few percentage points. The Z28, yeah, something is weird there. But the new Camaro is fine.

This whole argument is stupid anyways. Chassis dynos should be only used for tuning. That's it. There are way too many variables for an honest comparison between different dynos at different locations on different days. Trying to point out a ringer Camaro due to dyno tests is pointless and besides the point. The reviews are coming in. Everyone is pretty much pointing to the Camaro being superior, I haven't seen one review favor the Mustang overall.

That's fine and dandy... As we see, the drivetrain losses are 12-15%... that can be achieved... few front engine, rear drive trudge beyond those percentages. I am sure there are some strong dynos (380) and some weak dynos (360) which is a 12.5-14.5% spread... The 12% is considered a strong car and could very well be from a strong engine.


Even IF the SS managed to be stronger than the Corvette and more efficient, there still has to be a spread... Let's pretend 405RWHP is at the top, 380hp would be the lowest... I'm afraid the MT SS is the very best case scenario including RWHP, Curb Weight and PtW Ratio...

...this is on 91 Octane too AND, I don't think the MT car had NPP. It had black wheels optioned and I'm not sure what else it had.

Of course, I doubt we will ever see a perfect storm again. The Camaro's weight could do what the ATS-V did... as may the performance...

 

[thePill]

All I ask is to flip the script for once... What if the GT just dyno'd 392RWHP and the GT350 ran 492RWHP.

Instantly I would know something was up...

A 2011 GT dyno'd 390RWHP once... and it was admittedly the fault of those that did the dyno. Some people rejoiced, some were skeptic... we eventually found out it was 30hp too high. The vehicle that was incorrectly dyno'd didn't run anything unexpected... it was a little less than what C&D tested it at so... that is no harm, no foul...

Just humor me for once... what if the Mustang came to a comparison with 20-30 extra horsepower? Would that be okay?

 

[cosmo]

As long as the power numbers are reasonably within spec, I don't care. If a mustang dyno'd at 7% total loss, then yeah, that's some bs. 11-12? That's a solid mustang.

 

[thePill]

As long as the power numbers are reasonably within spec, I don't care. If a mustang dyno'd at 7% total loss, then yeah, that's some bs. 11-12? That's a solid mustang.

The only issue is, even with a solid axle, the GT never pushed well beyond 12%. 360-370 was the 420hp Coyote's sweet spot but, the solid axle was the reason the Mustang put power to the ground. The Boss 302 was about the same... maybe a tad more...

The GT350 uses a lot of tricks to get it below 12%... expensive tricks...

The Corvette took a huge step forward with a transaxle... only the cost is a negative here... and maybe packaging in some cases (rear seat vs. transaxle).

The Camaro though... right out the door it's more efficient than a transaxle and a solid axle car. Why even tamper with anything at this point? It already had an output and weight advantage... the comparison was set up for the SS to win... and they didn't test them :(

 

[ZaneWayne]

That's fine and dandy... As we see, the drivetrain losses are 12-15%... that can be achieved... few front engine, rear drive trudge beyond those percentages. I am sure there are some strong dynos (380) and some weak dynos (360) which is a 12.5-14.5% spread... The 12% is considered a strong car and could very well be from a strong engine.


Even IF the SS managed to be stronger than the Corvette and more efficient, there still has to be a spread... Let's pretend 405RWHP is at the top, 380hp would be the lowest... I'm afraid the MT SS is the very best case scenario including RWHP, Curb Weight and PtW Ratio...

...this is on 91 Octane too AND, I don't think the MT car had NPP. It had black wheels optioned and I'm not sure what else it had.

Of course, I doubt we will ever see a perfect storm again. The Camaro's weight could do what the ATS-V did... as may the performance...

Black wheel option????? You mean the painted stock ones hahahahaha. Yeah. Sure those helped.

 

[thePill]

Black wheel option????? You mean the painted stock ones hahahahaha. Yeah. Sure those helped.

I never said they would help... I brought them up as the only visible option. I didn't think they were standard and the SS as tested was $38,000.

I think I remember the black wheels being $800. That would take a $37,300 1SS up to $38,000...

...therefore leaving no room to option the NPP exhaust...


...and I believe the Motor Trend Yellow SS is the same Yellow SS Hot Rod dyno'd. So, any small increase in output it may see (2-4hp, if that) was not present during the SS run that list only 11% flat to the rear wheels (405rwhp).



Edit: Black wheels DO help at the track... In regards to hiding brake dust. In my opinion, every track wheel should be black. Especially in the Daily Driver/Weekend Track car genre.

 

[ZaneWayne]

I never said they would help... I brought them up as the only visible option. I didn't think they were standard and the SS as tested was $38,000.

I think I remember the black wheels being $800. That would take a $37,300 1SS up to $38,000...

...therefore leaving no room to option the NPP exhaust...


...and I believe the Motor Trend Yellow SS is the same Yellow SS Hot Rod dyno'd. So, any small increase in output it may see (2-4hp, if that) was not present during the SS run that list only 11% flat to the rear wheels (405rwhp).



Edit: Black wheels DO help at the track... In regards to hiding brake dust. In my opinion, every track wheel should be black. Especially in the Daily Driver/Weekend Track car genre.

They're 200. But I remember back a while ago, you said they had a black wheel that was a track wheel lol. I was just messing with you!

 

[70ApolloStaged]

For my first post let me say. Hahahaha. I've lurked here for awhile and read many, many, many posts and threads but never registered since I use this place as a resource for info, entertainment etc.

But....

This dyno argument has me rolling. Arguing dyno pulls on different days, on different machines with different operators is hilarity of the first order. Hell, arguing about the dyno numbers in general like they are some kinda fool proof down to the decimal point empirical data is ricer kids crap.

Why do I say this? Umm, I own a dyno and have so for 9 years and pulled hundreds of vehicles of all types. I may have a bit of insight so let me say straight up, a dyno is a TUNING tool not a dick measuring device. I ONLY use data on vehicles extracted from the same day, same session, sequential pulls.

Why?

In all the years I've seen as much as 10WHP difference on my imminently repeatable Dyno Dynamics loaded roller machine if I pull the same car on a different day. No matter how you apply your correction factors, variances happen in different day sessions. Could be a multitude of things that cause it from small tire pressure changes due to ambient temps, how tight the straps are(yep, makes a difference)engine tune less or more happy at certain outside temps. How operator "drove" vehicle on dyno each time. These are examples of what I've actually seen and noted trying to cure said variance. Trust me, you cant. Small ones will always be there. Why I do all tuning runs in one session, same day. Different session you make a fresh baseline pull as starting point and tune from there. I tell all my customers to never wave a dyno sheet from a chassis dyno around like a legal document cause I know anyone who did would get laughed outta any serious group of racers and tuners. Its just common knowledge you DO NOT argue chassis dyno pulls. Clown stuff.

BTW: My machine religiously reads 17% lower than a Dynojet inertia dyno. I could alter that to raise my numbers by playing with inertia settings but wont do it because I dont want to introduce another variable into the mix and I don't care about how high the number is in relation to other dynos. It is a tool. I aim to get a safe tuneup with numbers as high above the base line pull ON MY MACHINE as I can during our session. Side benefit is my "heartbreaker dyno" is almost always spot on with the math formula for trap speed(indication of HP)at the track when calculating power to weight ratio potential performance. When you do the math instead of hang your hat on a dyno sheet you actually find that most times it takes a lot less HP to go a certain speed than you think it does. To put it another way. If you pull 500whp and you run 110 mph at the track.....You dont have 500whp no matter what that happy dyno said.

As far as the 2016 Camaro(or Mustang or any car really) is concerned. I'm waiting til we get enough out there to have a decent sample group before I pass any judgment on its performance or I get to pull one, take it to the track and then crunch the numbers myself.

PS: Pill, no one cares about the weight if the car does what it's supposed to do when the time comes. Might wanna let that dog lay hoss. Your looking kinda silly constantly screeching when no one can independently verify squat yet.

 

[200MPHCOBRA]

I think the case for the Z/28 being tuned up is solid. These are the same guys that ran 122 with a "stock" Cadillac, so they have shown they are capable of hi-jinks.
Now, the SS is a different matter. Too coarse grained of a measurement with missing information to draw a firm conclusion.
If someone you know has propensity for stealing wallets if left out, you're going to be more careful with yours, I would apply that analogy to MT tests on these particular vehicles.
I'll be happy to wait and see what they really got when they get to mother natures dyno with owners.

 

[flaps]

For my first post let me say. Hahahaha. I've lurked here for awhile and read many, many, many posts and threads but never registered since I use this place as a resource for info, entertainment etc.

But....

This dyno argument has me rolling. Arguing dyno pulls on different days, on different machines with different operators is hilarity of the first order. Hell, arguing about the dyno numbers in general like they are some kinda fool proof down to the decimal point empirical data is ricer kids crap.

Why do I say this? Umm, I own a dyno and have so for 9 years and pulled hundreds of vehicles of all types. I may have a bit of insight so let me say straight up, a dyno is a TUNING tool not a dick measuring device. I ONLY use data on vehicles extracted from the same day, same session, sequential pulls.

Why?

In all the years I've seen as much as 10WHP difference on my imminently repeatable Dyno Dynamics loaded roller machine if I pull the same car on a different day. No matter how you apply your correction factors, variances happen in different day sessions. Could be a multitude of things that cause it from small tire pressure changes due to ambient temps, how tight the straps are(yep, makes a difference)engine tune less or more happy at certain outside temps. How operator "drove" vehicle on dyno each time. These are examples of what I've actually seen and noted trying to cure said variance. Trust me, you cant. Small ones will always be there. Why I do all tuning runs in one session, same day. Different session you make a fresh baseline pull as starting point and tune from there. I tell all my customers to never wave a dyno sheet from a chassis dyno around like a legal document cause I know anyone who did would get laughed outta any serious group of racers and tuners. Its just common knowledge you DO NOT argue chassis dyno pulls. Clown stuff.

BTW: My machine religiously reads 17% lower than a Dynojet inertia dyno. I could alter that to raise my numbers by playing with inertia settings but wont do it because I dont want to introduce another variable into the mix and I don't care about how high the number is in relation to other dynos. It is a tool. I aim to get a safe tuneup with numbers as high above the base line pull ON MY MACHINE as I can during our session. Side benefit is my "heartbreaker dyno" is almost always spot on with the math formula for trap speed(indication of HP)at the track when calculating power to weight ratio potential performance. When you do the math instead of hang your hat on a dyno sheet you actually find that most times it takes a lot less HP to go a certain speed than you think it does. To put it another way. If you pull 500whp and you run 110 mph at the track.....You dont have 500whp no matter what that happy dyno said.

As far as the 2016 Camaro(or Mustang or any car really) is concerned. I'm waiting til we get enough out there to have a decent sample group before I pass any judgment on its performance or I get to pull one, take it to the track and then crunch the numbers myself.

PS: Pill, no one cares about the weight if the car does what it's supposed to do when the time comes. Might wanna let that dog lay hoss. Your looking kinda silly constantly screeching when no one can independently verify squat yet.

Thank you, but you're not going to convince him. I've been telling him this same basic stuff for pages and it doesn't matter. He's still worried about a couple whp difference by different cars on different dynos tested in different years. It's amazing they are even that close. The Camaro could have beaten the Corvette by 20whp and it still wouldn't prove anything.

 

[ZaneWayne]

Thank you, but you're not going to convince him. I've been telling him this same basic stuff for pages and it doesn't matter. He's still worried about a couple whp difference by different cars on different dynos tested in different years. It's amazing they are even that close. The Camaro could have beaten the Corvette by 20whp and it still wouldn't prove anything.

It proves that alllllll the magazine testers are out to get the Mustang. Literally all of them are paid by GM.

 

[bballr4567]

Im still at a loss of the IRS of the Corvette is so different than the Z/28 that it helps the car "perform" better on the dyno.


You can go back to the days of the LS being dyno'd in the Camaro and then in the Corvette and despite the ratings, they all dyno'd the same.

Sponsored