Based on last weekend's strip performance for the LS1/4L60E, various on-line horsepower calculators come up with some interesting numbers.

Input:
Elevation: 5800'
DA: ~8500'
Weight w/driver: 3450
Best ET: 13.240
Best MPH: 104.89
NHRA correction factors (Stock, SS): .9276 for ET, 1.0773 for MPH
Sea level ET: 12.281
Sea level MPH:113.0 (rounded off)

Results (altitude/sea level):
http://www.fastcoolcars.com/hp_calculator.htm - Rear wheel 302/378, flywheel 378/473

http://www.dragtimes.com/horsepower-...calculator.php Flywheel 302/378 (hmmm, looks just like the above's rear wheel HP #'s)

http://www.dsm.org/tools/calchp.htm (RWHP):
ET method: 293/368
MPH method: 310/388

http://www.ajdesigner.com/phphorsepo...horsepower.php (RWHP):
310/388 (same as MPH method above)

http://www.competitiondiesel.com/Phil/bg/
MPH method: rear wheel 270/338 flywheel 293/367
ET method: rear wheel 244/305 flywheel 264/331

http://www.gordon-glasgow.org/hpcalc.html
Rear wheel 302/378 Flywheel 378/473 (looks familiar)

A performance magazine article a few years ago said drag strip performance was a more accurate predictor of power than a chassis dyno (even said component list was more accurate than a chassis dyno). There is a little spread between these guys (many obviously using the same formula), and some interpretation disagreement, but the numbers, even for RWHP, come out significantly higher than published factory net FWHP ratings. Something tells me the LS6 intake and long tube headers aren't enough to account for the difference.

I know I've heard the factory underrated these engines. But...

(I'll have real "sea level" numbers next week.)

 

So far, noone's gotten a 346-cube LS1, at under 10.5:1, to make much over 450 ft-lbs at the crank. Check out the dyno section of LS1tech.com, everyone's rwtq is under 400.
To trap 105 at sea level takes a bit less than 320 rwhp. Corrected to crankshaft, that's under 365 crank HP, at sea level.
All my figuring assumes T56, synthetic lubes in the trans and axle, and a not-Ford-9" axle.

 

Well, I'm trapping almost that at altitude (might get up to 105 in the cool dry fall air later). Auto, not T56. Petroleum engine oil (so far, that will change), synthetic ATF, petroleum gear lube in the 7.625" 10-bolt (Eaton is weird about synthetic lubes).

I'll post the Topeka #'s when they're available.

 

Most of the cars I see trapping 113 sealevel around that weight would be 320-330whp or so. There are reports of stock 4th gens running 110-112 stock and dyno'ing 320whp or so in good air at sealevel like conditions and they are abit heavier than 3500 I think.

Most bolt on ls1 cars make 335-350 whp depending on the year/mods/tune/dyno/etc. local kid's 99 TA with bolt ons went 111-112 at 2000-ish DA at my track and he had 6spd with 351whp and probably abit heavier than your weight. Another friends SS went 109 with 333whp at full weight in similar DA if not abit higher due to summer heat.
My bone stock 99 TA went 104mph in a 2500-2800 DA and I doubt it was much over 300whp thru that auto if it even got past that mark.

 

Oh, auto. Well, most of those calculators were devised based on carbureted SBC and BBC, not on injected LSx. Those older combos don't make the average torque the LS does because of LSx having better tune at the ends of the powerband. Those older combos had to make more peak torque to get the same average. This explains why they're predicting unrealistic torque numbers.
With auto having a correction factor of 0.78, then 310 rwhp should be 397 crank HP, which is in line with the TSP testing results we discussed last month.

 

98-2002 LS1's were all 345 hp they only rated them 305 in the f-bodies for marketing reasons to favor the Corvette. The engines were all identical internally aside from the LS6 that is

 

Sorry Cam, that's not so. Corvettes did get different camshafts, as has been discussed previously in other threads.

 

ly? Hmm thats new to me. Got any links I'll freshen up my info.

I do recall reading numerous threads when I was doing my first swap saying they were the same over at tech though. Havent revisited the topic since though and I didnt see any cam dr comparos so who knows? This was pretty commonly accepted back then though as most 4th gens were dyno'ing 290-310 rwhp stock hence the discussion of hp ratings. There was lots of talk of this LOL

 

Link? No. Book? Authored by the former manager of GMPP, yes. For '98-99, the 'vette cam was 199/207-117, 472/479, while the F-twins cam was 198/209-119.5, 500/500. The '00 'vette cam = 198/209-115.5, 500/500, F-twins = carryover from '99. For '01-'02, all 3 got the 196/207-116, 467/479 cam.

 

Hmm interesting. Year by year respectively they are very very similar cams though. The switch was likely for egr reasons when they ditched. Anyways its good to know thanks for the info

 

I have wondered why they got different cams. In the plant that made the engines, only 1 line, 1 shift was the LS1, because everything else was the truck versions.
I suppose they used stickers to keep the 'vette stuff separate from the F-twin stuff, but until '01, the F-cams weren't used in anything else, and likewise for the 'vette cam. It seems wrong, to me. The 'vette cams obviously were better, mostly for the reduced non-overlap, more than for the extra lift, some years.
But let's face it, ALL stock LSx cams are worse than crap. There's no real worthwhile benefit to opening the intake valves so extremely late. It helps nothing. It only allows us to find even more benefit from switching to aftermarket cams, and that's not a design criteria for GM engineering.
The initial design was intended for 14mm of valve lift, but was reduced to 13 mm. So why the heck didn't ALL the cams, from 'vette to truck, get at least 12.9999 mm of valve lift? More GM stupidity.
And why do the aftermarket cam companies charge $100 more per cam for LSx cams than for HR SBC cams? The quantities have caught up, and steel roller is steel roller. It's a blatant ripoff.
All enthusiasts need to ban together and stop buying cams until the cam grinders fix their prices and apologize to us, plus offer rebates to those who already purchased.
Heck, you can buy a chinese turbo cheaper than a new cam, and make more power for it, while also having more mpg.

 

Quite simply because they can. I did get into this somewhere over at tech once and the argument was made that with sbc cams the R&D is long over and done with theres nothing new its all been done so the costs came down. With LSx engines they are sill developing and spending on R&D hence the price difference. Regardless you are absolutely correct if we keep buying them at those prices they sure wont argue.

You dont want to know what I spent on my new cam. Custom spec and grind VVT with proprietary lobes and lots of discussions about it in between. For once Im a total guinea pig but I just hope it works out well

 

For the longest time all LSx parts were overpriced and some are still overpriced in my opinion. that made LSx route very expensive to go but the truck motors remain cheap...so there is hope there. Just all the other parts you need tend to add up very quickly

LSx cams are on larger journals so more intial material cost but definately not worth the extra 100 bucks. R&D? your just grinding a cam. Set up the cam grinding equipment for the new diameters and lobe profiles...certainly cant be that difficult to do. cams for all other brands like ford/mopar/etc seem to be around same price range but all different sizes.

 

Not to hi-jack here but I never really though LSx parts were over priced when looking at what you get. To equip a sbc with what a stock LSx comes with would cost ten times more. Coil per cyl technology, aluminum block and heads, six bolt mains and on and on. They cannot be compared just because a cam costs a hundred bucks more. Aside from that to get remotely comparable cylinder heads that flow as well as LSx stuff does for a sbc costs very dearly. Plus 1200 bucks for a set of nicely CNC'd LS6 heads is cheap as all get out in my opinion. Plus for whatever reason cranks/rods/pistons cost no more for LSx builds than sbc builds respective to quality for quality. Meaning Eagle kits for LSx builds are pretty much the same as sbc builds. Now FAST intakes? Yeah RIP OFF!! The hp to dollar figure there is just insane. There are places where LSx stuff costs more but not than many really. If your a capable wrench and can do the swap work yourself dollar for dollar I think the LSx builds are far more value

I could go on but Im beating a dead horse here this has been covered many times and Im probably hitting the repeat button anyways but its raining out and I felt like blabbing a little its been a while.

 

How can it be more material when it's hollow? And why aren't HR SBC sticks hollow?

 

From what I've read about COMP's R&D with the new VVT, phasers, and such, it seems fascinating, and I'd like to play with it next year. I hope my cancer goes into remission just so I can. I want smaller lobes, I think there's the possibility of even more low-rpm TQ in the LQ9 than anyone has ever seen before, even if it takes 150 octane. can you imagine a 408 LQ9 challenging an old 502? But with double the mileage and clean emissions! Hell yeah! VVT for everyone!

 

That i did not know..i just knew they were larger in diameter at the base circle and journals. Interesting. I guess hollow to cut out extra rotating weight? part of the improvement of Gen III and later technology? i dont know.

VVT is very interesting and I got excited when GM released that. I just hope it actually gives the performance capability. Vtec anyone?? Love to see a power curve kick in like those hondas in a big cube LSx motor

 

Made a few passes at the T&T tonight. DA started around 2800'. First pass I screwed up the shift points (need to be ready sooner here), was hitting the rev limiter before it got into third. Still ran a 12.408 @ 110.9. Next pass I left it in 3rd at the launch, it shifted 1-2 @ 4500 RPMs, 2-3 @ 6500, for a 12.466 @ 109.

3rd and 4th the DA had dropped to 2400', but humidity was getting into the 75%+ range, dew was forming on car rooftops. Still ran a 12.40 & 12.42.

Using those #'s, 362 RWHP and 450 FWHP.

60' picked up pretty good, from 2.0 @ altitude to 1.80's and 1.81's. Didn't mind the RT's too much, either.

We'll see what it does tomorrow. Got to get some sleep now.

 

Heal well. As for VVT yeah its interesting for certain and definitely a big part of the future for all manufacturers so we might as well get on the horsey now. Im back and forth with it thus far as its been a royal pita to get all the parts put together and tuning it poses a challenge that can only be met by few so there are some hurdles. In the end im sure i'll be happy with it though. Either that or I'll grenade it trying to sort it out LOL


five7 those are some mighty decent numbers man congrats. I too am off to bed zzzzz

 

I protest use of a 0.8044444 correction factor. It just doesn't fit any real dyno testing. The best 700R-4 / 4L60E with 7.625" axle, with synthetics, running stock line pressure in the trans, is about .783, and more typically in the 0.76 range with high line pressure and dead-dynosaur gear oil.
Admittedly, there haven't been that many examples that were pulled from a SuperFlow chassis dyno then run on a SuperFlow engine dyno, with all the same exhaust and everything, but so far the best I've ever seen is 0.783 for a GM, automatic setup. I wish I had a link, but I lost it the last time my PC crashed. I do apologize, but even so, I'm big on accuracy.

 

I dont think its that high...those new track numbers are similar to what bolt on 4th gens do here in PA at those DA's. Still think 330whp or so is accurate. Car should pick up abit more with less humidity and slightly lower DA. Pretty good numbers nonetheless

 

Bone stock LS1's have dyno'd 305-323rwhp here on the same Dyno.
I drove my friends 02 WS6, bone stock, 3650lbs with no driver to a 13.12@109mph, 2.1 60'. It dyno'd 323RWHP.

 

I'm just ball-parking, anyway. I'll accept RWHP estimates.

I'm just tickled that it took about a second off of what the ZZ3/cc-carb/TH700/2500 stall/3.23 gears set-up ran. It's also about 100 pounds lighter without having to remove the spare tire or run with a 1/4 tank of gas.

 

Forgot to update this with new bests in October: 12.889 @ 106.6 MPH. DA according to the track data was 7120' with a 16 MPH head wind.

Translates to 320 RW and 402 FW HP at altitude (without accounting for the wind).

Converting to sea level, 11.95 @ 114.8, which when plugged in equal 403/504.

Nuts. Just plain nuts.

 

I believe the main reason LS cams are more expensive is because they are gundrilled (hollowed out). That process makes the cores a lot more expensive. Also most all of the new cams have lobe technology that far surpasses the old stuff which i would assume takes a lot more R&D time to perfect.