2010 Chevy Camaro SS Engine Tuning - Punch To The Mid Section
10-03-2009, 06:55 AM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,123
Where do you see 51 RWHP "at the top end"? I see ~15. A solid gain from just a tune to be sure - but hardly the amount you quoted.
Note that I've already addressed the low rpm power - whether folks agree with my analyis or not is a different story.
I read the article, and looked at the data.
- Ambient conditions were accounted for via the SAE correction factors. Not an issue.
- No clue why 20" tires would make a difference on the dyno. Weight matters not on the rollers, and higher gearing (lower numerically) that would result from those tall tires would typically show MORE power than lower gearing. Not an issue, in fact, could even skew numbers up a bit.
- Why on earth would you mention tyres? Were they spinning on the rollers? Not an issue.
- How much power does the IRS chew up? I would suggest very little - as in less than 5 RWHP. I did back-to-back testing on my 99 Cobra with its stock "band-aid" IRS vs a live axle, and the average result was <5 RWHP. Minor issue, at best.
- Auto trans will obviously not show as much power, on average, as a manual. I got that. I think most people get it too.
350 HP LS1s (we all know that's what they made) with A4s typically produced in the neighborhood of 300 RWHP. I will stick with my opinion that 317 SAE Corrected RWHP through an A6 with a rated engine HP of 400 seems low. Perhaps I'm wrong - but that is my opinion/perception.
If your opinion differs, ok.
Bob
Note that I've already addressed the low rpm power - whether folks agree with my analyis or not is a different story.
I read the article, and looked at the data.
- Ambient conditions were accounted for via the SAE correction factors. Not an issue.
- No clue why 20" tires would make a difference on the dyno. Weight matters not on the rollers, and higher gearing (lower numerically) that would result from those tall tires would typically show MORE power than lower gearing. Not an issue, in fact, could even skew numbers up a bit.
- Why on earth would you mention tyres? Were they spinning on the rollers? Not an issue.
- How much power does the IRS chew up? I would suggest very little - as in less than 5 RWHP. I did back-to-back testing on my 99 Cobra with its stock "band-aid" IRS vs a live axle, and the average result was <5 RWHP. Minor issue, at best.
- Auto trans will obviously not show as much power, on average, as a manual. I got that. I think most people get it too.
350 HP LS1s (we all know that's what they made) with A4s typically produced in the neighborhood of 300 RWHP. I will stick with my opinion that 317 SAE Corrected RWHP through an A6 with a rated engine HP of 400 seems low. Perhaps I'm wrong - but that is my opinion/perception.
If your opinion differs, ok.
Bob
Maybe I'm missing something here but I thought it was 'common knowledge' that big wheels and different compound tires could throw out dyno numbers by as much as 30 rwhp?
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...n1207_0002.jpg
As far as SAE corrections... dunno but the LS engines do suffer a lot from heat soak being an all aluminum engine. I'm not sure how a dyno could possibly correct for such anomalies?
Not claiming to be an expert and certainly not claiming you are incorrect... maybe I'm just showing my naivety here.
Last edited by SSbaby; 10-03-2009 at 07:05 AM.
10-03-2009, 11:02 AM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 3,252
Aluminum dissipates heat faster than iron. Not sure how that contributes to heat soak.
I actually like and agree with most of the stuff in the article you posted. However, if it was "common knowledge" that big wheels and xyz compound tires that threw off dyno readings, then that is news to me. How on earth would the dyno even know those things? That guy seems to think so......ok. Maybe I just haven't heard either. That said, 30 RWHP would be a HUGE stretch. Most 'little' things like that are very, very small percentages.
I actually like and agree with most of the stuff in the article you posted. However, if it was "common knowledge" that big wheels and xyz compound tires that threw off dyno readings, then that is news to me. How on earth would the dyno even know those things? That guy seems to think so......ok. Maybe I just haven't heard either. That said, 30 RWHP would be a HUGE stretch. Most 'little' things like that are very, very small percentages.
10-03-2009, 06:10 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,123
The heavier wheel/tyre combo accelerates the drum less quickly, I'm thinking.
I don't think the dyno knows everything. If you run the dyno in 3rd gear, 4th gear and 5th gear, you'll get skewed readings.
The thing is, if the dyno operator is consistent, they will get consistent results.
Heat soak... The IATs and ECTs rise due to the better heat conductivity in aluminum. Therefore the engine operates in a less effective range.
Anyway, I don't want to sound like an expert here because I'm not.
I don't think the dyno knows everything. If you run the dyno in 3rd gear, 4th gear and 5th gear, you'll get skewed readings.
The thing is, if the dyno operator is consistent, they will get consistent results.
Heat soak... The IATs and ECTs rise due to the better heat conductivity in aluminum. Therefore the engine operates in a less effective range.
Anyway, I don't want to sound like an expert here because I'm not.
Last edited by SSbaby; 10-03-2009 at 06:23 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
NewsBot
2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia
0
12-28-2014 06:20 PM
CARiD
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
12-26-2014 04:20 AM
ChrisFrez
CamaroZ28.Com Podcast
2
12-07-2014 06:01 PM
PFYC
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
12-04-2014 11:56 AM
NewsBot
2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia
0
12-03-2014 12:30 PM