Hey there folks, this is my first post on this site so I might as well introduce myself! My name is Eric, I'm 27 and I'm from central North Carolina. I like almost all "old school" American cars and even a few old foreign cars too. Despite working on a super low budget I have Mopar, GM, Ford and even AMC stuff and apart from junk I've flipped and scrapped I've never owned a road vehicle newer than an 86 model.
Not long ago I got a deal on a non running 1984 Trans Am with T-tops, LG4 305, 700R4, and 3.23 open diff and my plan was to get the car going and flip it for a profit. However after getting it running and driving for the first time I was really impressed with how well the little carbureted 305 performed, especially considering the negative reputation that it has.
In fact after making a couple minor improvements to it to get it ready to sell, like new air filter and ignition tune up kit it has become a little tire eating animal. Unfortunately one of the previous owners butchered the Y pipe trying to change the starter so I had to set up some dirt cheap parts store duals with Jegs glasspacks. Also to prevent potential vapor lock issues and improve performance here in the hot humid south I installed a one inch phenolic spacer under the stock carb and a 160 degree thermostat as well as removed the warm air flapper and tube from the stock air cleaner assembly. I have also increased the ignition timing slightly and side gapped the spark plugs.
My point is that apart from some very very cheap and basic upgrades and tuning tricks a basically stock "145 horsepower" 305 is actually a very strong little motor and is indeed under rated for some reason or another. For proof I've included a link to a video I recently made on this subject citing multiple dyno tests, an old road test video, horsepower calculators and even some raw footage of my "145 HP" TA shredding one tire with no help from the brake.
Hopefully this will help put to rest some of the undeserved hate the 305 has received over the years.
Thanks for reading and thanks for watching the vid if you have time!

 

You're shredding a tire because you are only spinning one. The T/A in the race was an HO which was actually an underated 190hp. A stock LG4 145-15hp F-body ran 16-17 sec 1/4 runs so that is probably about right.

 

Thanks for watching and responding, I'm aware the one in the race was an HO, an HO has almost a full point more compression and a better cam and is making more like 260 HP. A point more compression and 500 more RPM doesn't make 100 HP, more like 50. Not trying to sound like a know it all but you might wanna mess around with that HP calculator I linked in the vid.

A full bodied steel car can't burn a 15 inch white letter tire all the way through 1st gear with 145 horsepower and an automatic. The LG4 is making closer to 200 HP, even the old school math supports it. If advertised torque is 240 ft pounds and horsepower is torque multiplied by RPM divided by 5250 then using that gets you 240 TQ x 4500 RPM = 1080000 divided by 5250 = 205.714286 HP Yes I used a calculator because I suck at math.

 

My stock 83 305 G20 van would burn P255/70R15s off with the factory 3.08 posi in the back. Doesn't mean it was fast, just means the 700r4s first gear gave it enough torque multiplication to break traction.

Problem is that anemic 178/194 @ 0.050 cam gave peak torque at 2,000 rpm and the torque curve fell off a mountain after 3,000 rpm. That 240 ft/lbs was down in the 180 ft/lbs range by the time the engine hit 4,500 rpm.

 

I don't think you're going to change anyone's opinion here. I had one. It was a turd.

As you've discovered, it does respond well to some things; timing and exhaust, since the stock exhaust is SO BAD...and the stock timing is SO LAME (along w/compression). On mine, I ditched the fan, added a mild cam, did an exhaust, did the cold air mod that you did and a 160 stat and dropped a full second in the 1/4 mile. Still, it was 15.3/85 mph. So a turd.

Using the peel-o-meter for checking hp is always folly...especially on a 1 tire fryer.

 

^^^Agreed! The 2011 M56S big old 4 door luxury sports sedan would get through the 1/4 mile quicker than an early LG4 would go from 0-60 (12.2s) and trap at 112 mph.

 

You're math is way, way off. It's focked up. And claiming 260 hp for a 305ho as a basis for you other math? You're starting off with one foot in the grave.

Look at trap speeds in the 1/4 mile and there is your hp. What do LG4's trap?

 

The early ones were lucky to trap 72-74 mph. I saw a lower mileage CFI car trap 78 mph bone stock once.

 

I believe it. Especially if it was an '82 with a 3 speed.

I had an '83 CFI car (hence my screen name). With Edlebrock headers &Y, "Free mods" and a 5 speed it went 14.5/95. So they could run....but needed some help, that's for sure. Ain't no stock LG4 that made "closer to 200hp". No f'n way.

 

Just curious ,

You say you just bought this car and you think it's faster than a 305 ought to be ?

Are you SURE it's a bone stock 305 that has never had any modifications done ?

I ask because at a full 35 years old lots of things may have gone on under the hood in all those previous years by any or all of it's previous owners .

 

I have seen an article of an 82 LG4 engine dyno that made 197 hp. It had an old non computer Q-jet, long tube headers, open exhaust and an old HEI with alot of timing and all the belt driven accessories and smog stuff removed. Hardly stock at all.

 

^Yep^. That was some serious..."GROSS" hp measuring in that test article!

 

Cheesy YouTube channel checklist

[x] No Fact Checking
[x] Unfounded Claims
[x] Clickbait preview image

Things you could do better with..

• Factual accuracy
• Dyno graphs when trying to debunk HP claims

 

....and trap speeds of LG4 cars that are actually stock.

 

What part of "my" math is messed up? I'm using reputable calculators and time tested formulas. http://www.bgsoflex.com/roughhp.html The whole point of not posting the dyno numbers from other peoples vids and posting the links to their vids instead was for the sake of not stealing their content. It's a real dork move to put someone else's whole video in your own video in case you guys weren't aware. Those cars were all putting more power to the wheels than what's advertised for an LG4 at the crank. Your average older automatic solid rear axle car loses roughly 75-100 HP from the crank to the wheels. https://www.hotrod.com/articles/ccrp...in-power-loss/ With those cars putting down between 150 and 170 rwhp they have to be making over 200 at the crank without a doubt. My first engine in my 68 Plymouth satellite daily was a 235 HP 10.25:1 solid lift 273 from a Cuda. I know what 200 HP feels like. I know what less feels like as well, my 75 Plymouth Valiant Slant six sedan is supposed to have the same horsepower but this TA absolutely blows it out of the water. Just because the Slant can light up one tire doesn't mean it's fast or under rated. The TA is definitely under rated though, it blows that Valiants doors off and they both have the same advertised power. And @Tom 400 CFI to my knowledge everyone with a dyno is still going by gross numbers these days. Only manufacturers are using net.

 

LOL....75-100 hp loss...Not hardly. That means the driveline would eat more than the smog era 4 and 6 cylinder RWD engines made at the crank. Try 18-22% for a car with a light duty driveline. That would be normal loss for a TH200c/TH250 or 700r4 and a 7.5" 10-bolt.

 

@OrangeBird I'll get back to you when I check if the numbers match but I know what it looks like when someone has been messing around under the hood and this thing appears to be an essentially unmolested low miles car. I seriously doubt a 350 was ever swapped into this car unless it was done by a dealer or some other professional a long time ago because everything is in proper order and has the same look of age to it. It doesn't run anything like a 350 either, it's definitely a 4 barrel 305 with all the smog equipment still hooked up. All 8 read roughly what 8.5:1 compression should read on a compression tester and it quits pulling around 4500 where the stock cam should so all is stock inside unless it has some kind of tiny barely above stock RV cam. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is one.

 

This is why I waited until the L69 came out to buy one of these cars, in spite of that I damn near filled the cup the first time I saw a 82 pace car. I traded in a 79 Z28 4-speed to get it.

In about 86, one of my little brothers bought a car EXACTLY like you have... 84 LG4 auto 3.23.

My 83 L69 (aka HO) 5-speed could start out behind him at a light, pull around his, and pass it about halfway through 2nd, then pull around in front of him shortly after hitting 3rd.

It was even more unequal from a highway speed punch. The more the motor needed to rev, the more obvious it was how crippled the LG4 was.

At a rough guess (a measured stretch of road and a stopwatch... iPhones didn't have an accelerometer in em yet), my L69 was a consistent 15.2 and occasionally better, and his car was a bit more than 1.5 slower. Mine would go noticeably faster, maybe .2 - .3, according to the butt dyno if I put premium in it but I usually didn't since even though it made more power (less knock retard) it also got worse mileage so for a DD it wasn't worth it. If we lined em up and ran, it didn't even dimly resemble a race. My car would do around 91-92 in the 1320, his wouldn't break 80.

My car had around 70k on it at that time; his, around 40k.

Mine was silver, his was red. Maybe that was a factor?

 

@Fast355 That's the whole reason transmissions like the TH200 were developed. The TH200 and 700R4 aren't even in the same boat either. A TH200 is much lighter inside and won't rob as much power or stand up to as much power either. That 25% drivetrain loss blanket guesstimate mainly applies to little FWD manual transmission junk. Almost every transmission design robs a different percentage.

 

@sofakingdom Sounds like fun times! My 305 is a lot like that, all kinds of power out of the hole but completely out of breath after 4500 RPM. I love it that way too, the 273 I used to have in my Satellite needed to spin up to about 2500 RPM to make peak torque which was no fun at all with an automatic and tall gears. The low RPM torque of this 305 makes it much more pleasant to drive despite having a few less HP than the 273 did. I know the HO is a much better engine, like I said before it has a better cam and nearly a full point more compression. On a HP calculator that's worth about 50 horses so I don't doubt for a second the HO is a much better engine. the HO motors better cam is obviously where that extra top end came from.

 

NO..Simply NO...25% is about what my 4L85E and GM 10.5" full float rear end consume power wise.

I bet the FWD manual trans in my little 2014 Sentra that I often use to commute around is like 10-12% loss. We put it on the dyno for the hell of it at 98K miles and it pulled 115 hp at the tires and was rated 130 hp crank. That little 1.8L/FWD 6spd would humiliate a stock LG4.

 

Cam is only half of it. The higher compression ratio and much better exhaust system as well are equal to the cam in effectiveness.

 

@Fast355 Yeah 25% is too high for a small FWD manual transmission I was wrong there for sure. 25% is the blanket term everyone likes to throw around these days though and not every transmission uses that much. I do know that if the Ford AOD and 9 inch from this article are robbing 100 HP or 32% on the way to the wheels then a 4l85E and 10.5 aren't doing much better.

 

@Fast355 I wasn't aware the HO's came with anything better in terms of exhaust. What's the difference?

 

H.O.s had 2-1/4 inch outlets on the exhaust manifolds, 2-1/4" Y-pipe, 2-3/4" intermediate pipe, high-flow Corvette catalytic converter, and 2-1/4" tailpipes. I have an entire H.O. exhaust system on my '83, even though it didn't come with it...

 

@T.L. Thanks!

 

I'm having trouble deciding where to start... 305 under rated? Maybe, but not enough to really matter. If you broke out the balancing scale, and weighed every factor of why/how a 305 could be under rated on one side, and put all the why/hows a 305 could be over rated on the other, the bias would easily lean to the over rated side.

The LG4 (low output 4bbl) 305 wasn't the worst 305 by any means, and it wasn't the best either. It's nothing special, and deserves 90% of the criticism it gets. That's not to say it's total trash, but you gotta be realistic about it. A lot of people have overestimated their 305. A lot of people. Don't encourage them.

 

@Drew Yes a lot of people have overestimated their 305 LoL
But I don't feel that the ballpark of 200 HP is that outrageous of a claim, especially when dyno tests and a calculator say it's possible.

 

Impact - read what Ja85z28 did to his LG4 Camaro, upgrading it in steps to better than L69 specs. Essentially he removed all the bottlenecks on the LG4.
Here's one to get you started: https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/auto...onversion.html

 

@NoEmissions84TA Thanks that's a really sharp car! For mine I wanna leave the engine internally stock except for possibly advancing the stock cam a bit but I'm not sure how that would work out with peak power already happening at 4500. I just wanna optimize what's already there and show people the potential of a basically stock underdog LG4. I already have a 4.10 gear and spool waiting to go in the car along with a B&M kickdown piece that lets it hold 4th gear at WOT so it wont lose top speed with the 4.10.
I've thought about all kinds of stuff I could do to the motor to pep it up on the down low like cam, headwork and better ratio roller rockers but I wanna be able to tell people it's stock internally without lying. I don't plan on getting rid of the stock intake, exhaust, carb, distributor or air cleaner assembly and I don't wanna pull the heads and work them any. There's still a few little tricks I can apply to it including smog and AC delete as well as solid engine mounts. I know some people don't like solid mounts but they never bothered me.

 

There are 3 main things you can do to wake up your LG4:
1) get that factory "T" pipe out of there. Switch to a high-flow cat.
2) higher stall torque converter (2200 - 2600 rpm)
3) numerically higher rear end gears

The rest is just basic hot-rodding.

Edit: oh yeah, the single snorkel air cleaner IS a restriction.

Edit again: We have the same car and I have a Jet chip, if you are interested. Thermomaster Stage II. I will check my ECM code.

While searching I found this LG4 vs L69 comparison from member sonjaab: https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/tech...ml#post6152398
But scroll down to #34. five7kid has some corrections: https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/tech...ml#post6153633

 

As someone that owns a chassis dyno, and has probably ran more cars than anyone on this forum, I am uniquely positioned to comment on drivetrain losses.

Generally speaking, we see about 15-18% drivetrain losses on AWD cars. We run a LOT of these and have run plenty that are bone stock and we know exactly what the stock engines are rated at.

Losses on RWD cars are typically a bit less. About 12-15%

When I ran my modified 86 LB9, orginally rated at ~190 HP, but upgraded with exhaust, 1.6 rockers, and custom tune..... 185 RWHP. At the most generous that about 212 crank HP. Which is right about inline with the 10-15 HP for the exhaust and maybe 5 HP for the rockers.

I run cars all the time. Often daily. I'm currently tuning a TPI speed density setup on a 61 Vette. You get a REAL good feel for drivetrain losses owning a dyno.

And regardless of what you *think* that LG4 makes.... trust me it's a turd. Your Cuda was a lot heavier and it's ALL about power to weight. I drive cars FOR A LIVING that are 400, 500, 600+ wheel HP on a daily basis and trust me - that LG4 makes 145 HP. What makes it feel "quick" is the torque curve.

GD

 

700r4/4L60E and a 7.5/8.5 is about 18% loss. I have dyno'd no less than about 20 of these setups for baselines on stock cars and trucks. The 2wd trucks usually lose a little more because of the mechanical engine fan and 2 piece driveshafts with the carrier bearing. The 2wd 1/2 ton trucks lose 20-22%. The 12-15% is either a stick or a modern good automatic and modern lightweight rear end.

A bone stock 275-285 HP LT1 automatic F-car is in the 230-240 hp range. A 260 HP LT1 B-car is 210-215 hp. A 200 hp TBI 350 makes about 150-160 rwhp. A 255 HP 350 Vortec truck is 190-200 rwhp. A 285 hp 5.3 puts down 220 rwhp. The Electric fan 5.3 trucks rated at 295 hp put down about 230 rwhp.

 

It is true that the vast majority of cars we dyno are manual trans. The Automatic probably does account for a few percent more.... but just a few. It isn't anywhere near 25% though. Even the automatic trans AWD cars are nowhere close to that figure. Maybe getting up around 20% on some of them.

Trucks and vans - especially with those mechanical fans, etc - get up into those figures because of heavy drivetrain components and parasitic loads as you pointed out. We don't get into doing much of that stuff. Mostly we are running Subaru EJ turbos, Nissan RB's and SR's, Toyota 1J/2J's, and of course LS's. Occasionally some Hellcats.... we get a fun variety as I rent out the dyno to a few of my associates for tuning that's out of my element, etc.

GD

 

That 240 lb-ft of torque doesn’t occur at 4500 rpm. It occurs at 2400 rpm.
https://www.thirdgen.org/1984-pontiac-firebird/

 

I actually looked at 8 different vehicles with 4L60E and 7.5/8.5" rear ends on Hypertechs dyno charts for their tuners. Compared to the stock power ratings every single one was 20-23%. Then I looked at a Camaro LS1 6spd. If you go by the simple fact that every LS1 is 350 hp like it is in a Vette and not the under rated 335 hp, it lost nearly 16%. The LS1 automatic Corvette was slightly worse at about 19%. I did find one specific truck that had calculated losses that were very high. The 99 5.3 showed 195 rwhp for a massive 27.8% loss but I feel the real drivetrain loss is less. That year 5.3 is just gutless and probably over rated at 270 hp. Then a 2003 Tahoe suddenly turns around and shows an 18% loss.

For the hell of it I also looked at a stock L29 454 and L18 8.1 with a 4L80E and 10.5" 14-bolt behind them. They were 25-27% loss. The 98 C2500 454 made 212 rwhp at a 290 hp crank rating for 26.9% loss.

Percent loss being calculated as.

(OEM Crank HP - Rear Wheel HP) / OEM HP x 100.

(290-212)/290x100

78/290 = .269 × 100 = 26.9%

Finally to check the math.

1-0.269 = 0.731

212/0.731 = 290.01

I rounded the previous 0.269 value that I used to calculate % loss so the slight difference makes sense.

I did find something interesting as well. Looking at a 4.3 S10 or a 5.7 Tahoe with the same driveline as an Automatic F-car or Automatic B-car respectfully that if you take away the ~10 hp to drive the fan, the losses fall right in line with a car.

2002 4.3 S10...Crank Rated 190..Did 146 rwhp.

(190-146)/190x100 = 23.2% loss

190-10 for 180 hp crank driving the fan

(180-146)/180×100 = 18.9%

1999 5.7 Tahoe Crank Rated 255...Did 198 rwhp

(255-198)/255×100 = 22.4% loss

Lose the fan from the equation

(245-198)/245x100 = 19.2% loss

 

Whoa! Hold up on the thread hijacking. How'd we get hung up on driveline losses when this thread is supposed to be about the awesome untapped potential of the asthmatic LG4?

305 is like a NASCAR it's got the whoo-WHOOO!!! People just don't know how to jack em up like a mother round here.

 

I was refuting his 30% + driveline loss claim.

I will stick with the math I have used for more than 10 years on these 700R4/4L60E and 7.5/8.5" rear drivelines. Cars at 18% and trucks/suvs/vans with mechanical fans at 22%.

That being said my old 83 LE9 305 with an edelbrock performer rpm intake/tri-y headers/Comp high energy 268 cam made 191 rwhp in a G20 spinning a clutch fan.

191/0.78 = ~244 crank hp

My stock L05 with headers and tuning made 178 rwhp.

178/0.78 = 228 crank hp

My bolt on L05 with the same headers, same performer RPM, 454 TBI and 1.6 rockers did 204 rwhp.

204/0.78 = ~261 crank hp

 

Here is another perfect example of a low mileage then new 87 LG4. Article was written in June/87.

https://thirdgenfbody.wordpress.com/...phr-june-1987/

142 hp @ 4,000 / 0.82 = 173 crank hp
134 hp @ 4,500 / 0.82 = 163 crank hp

So the later 165-170 hp rating fits the later LG4s. The earlier 145 hp cars would have been under 120 hp at the wheels. Especially since they had clutch fans....Real fire breathers let me tell you.

In that article they did get the LG4 with the stock long block to 182 rwhp. That is a nice healthy improvement over stock and about 220 hp at the crank. Mild computer friendly cam would have bumped it up to abou 240-250 crank hp.

 

If your 86 LB9 has a 700r4/7.5 in it the thing loses right at 18%. 185/0.82 = ~225 crank HP.

The first thing I did to my old 83 carb 305 rated 165 hp was ditch the factory manifolds, stock y-pipe, and stock pellet cat and cheap muffler shop 2" single outlet muffler and tail pipe. In its place I put a set of factory stainless 1-ton tubular manifolds and the stainless 2.5" dual exhaust piping off an 85 G30 350. I added a universal X-pipe that fit the factory exhaust spacing practically perfectly and replaced the OEM mufflers with a pair of magnaflow magnapacks. The exhaust modifications gave about 20-25 hp. Muffler shops 2" muffler and tailpipe probably cost 5-10 hp compared to the OEM 2.5" single in/dual 2" out factory muffler. I swapped the stock intake for a performer rpm at the same time, ditching the EGR and rejetting the Q-Jet at the same time. I went from ~125 rwhp to 170 rwhp with those changes. The 268 cam and thorley tri-ys into the same exhaust system gave the other 21 hp to 191.

 

It depends on the dyno you are running it on. Loading vs. inertial, etc. We mostly run the DynoJet in inertia mode, without applying the load cells - for determining WOT performance. This will give the highest numbers, and therefore offset the losses. If you start applying the load cells and do simulated vehicle load based on curb weight, tire size, wind resistance, etc you start to see the losses climb like that. It's just a difference in measuring. The variation among dynos - DynoJet vs. Mustang vs. Dyno Dynamics, etc is largely in the calculations and the loading..... the problem is that DynoJet has pretty much become the industry standard and while *mine* has load cells to do simulated loading (very useful for tuning as you can step the engine through all load/rpm ranges), that is not the default configuration. Most are sold as simple inertia units that will tell you peak HP and TQ but are not that useful other than for tuning WOT.

GD

 

I only mess around and tune on a loaded dyno. I request simulated vehicle load even for power pulls. I don't want to have to fight fuel and spark knock issues once I pull it off the dyno and hit the road. On the Mustang dyno I tune on I actually pulled my new 383 down in rpm with more load than output to simulate pulling a hill with a trailer. A mustang dyno will pull an engine making 400 ft/lbs of torque at the tires down enough in 3rd gear to force it to downshift. I ended up having to pull some timing from the tune in response to knock found as well.

FWIW we simulated an 8% grade at 12,500 lbs with the frontal area and drag corresponding to a school bus (closest thing we could come up with to my 11' tall, 8' wide travel trailer). Started the pull at 85 mph in 3rd gear which is about 4,700 rpm and it pulled 3rd gear down to 65 mph at 3,800 rpm at which point it downshifted and we terminated the test. The Eddy current really didn't like that much either.

Simulating road load of the Express van empty at 6,200 lbs I ended up making 376 rwhp. I figure the 383 is ~500 hp. I figure atleast 25% drivetrain loss.
376/.75 = ~501 hp. Close enough for me.

 

Yes loaded tuning is very useful. My DynoJet can absorb 1600 HP worth of load - 800 per axle. It can hold the engine at a given RPM no matter how much throttle you apply, etc. Very useful for getting into load cells that "normal" driving wouldn't see without long steep grades, etc. The new Winpep 8 software has some amazing features for loading - I can enable the exact same features of a Mustang - the software even has a database of vehicles with tire sizing and curb weights, etc to make it easier to setup.

The problem comes in when you are trying to compare numbers to the industry standard - which is indisputably the DynoJet inertia dyno without loading..... I'm not at all saying it's better, and I really don't understand how DynoJet became the standard for this form of measurement, but speaking with the former owner of my dyno - he chose the DynoJet that I now have because of fact.

This goes to the heart of the debate on DynoJet vs. Mustang, and our differing losses are a result of the measurement differences between the two systems.

Basically, one has to know that a loading dyno, vs, a non-loading inertia dyno is going to introduce a difference of about 3-8% depending on how much additional losses the dyno creates based on the programmed characteristics of the vehicle (curb weight, tire size, drag coefficients, etc).

Another problem with using the loading dyno numbers (Mustang, or DynoJet with load cells, etc) is that the operator can EASILY influence the numbers by manipulating the load - changing the information being input into the software will directly impact the numbers and the temptation on the part of the operator to "fudge" the Mustang numbers for higher readings can be difficult to resist; Here the DynoJet has the clear advantage because in the simple inertia mode, the operator CANNOT fudge the numbers because there is ZERO input by the operator. The car is loaded and you make a pull - the dyno doesn't care what vehicle is on it in that mode. This makes inertia dyno pulls between different DynoJet's very comparable as the operator can't influence the factory calibration of the dyno. This makes for consistent readings across all DynoJet's regardless of the individual dyno you run on.

GD

 

^^^^This is TRUE. People always seem to grab at large "%" numbers in order to bolster their opinion of CHP. I'd go further and say that the actual loss in most cars is 10-12%. Here are a few examples of my own, to support this:
My stock 06 C6. We know that it's 400CHP. Mine did 366 RWHP. What % is that?
My wife's '05 CTS-V, we know that's 400CHP. Hers did 340 RWHP. What % is that?
My stock '92 LT1. We know that's 300 CHP. Mine did 279 RWHP. What % is that?
My stock-except-for-exhaust '89 'Vette Kart. We know that 89 L98 TPI's w/exhaust are about 255-260hp. The Kart did 240 RWHP. What % is that?

8.5%
15%
7%
8%

....so, ImportGarage, there is one place where you math is way, way off.

 

YIKES. You've got a lot to learn. Do you really want me to get into this and break it all down for you? If you DO....and you're actually going to read what I write, I'll do it. Consider that before responding please.

 

I never had a Cuda, I also posted a link to an article showing an automatic RWD performance car losing 100 HP on the way to the wheels at a chassis dyno. Looks like you just skimmed this thread super quick and responded. There isn't that big of a weight difference between my Satellite and my trans Am either. The Satellite weighed 3350 stock before I replaced a bunch of iron with aluminum, sheet metal and plastic and ripped out everything that it doesn't need to drive down the road. The Satellite probably weighs about 3150-3200 now and the TA is supposed to weigh 3128 stock. I didn't just pull that 75-100 HP loss figure out of my hat either, some guys that have been racing since my father was in diapers told me that and I've seen it proven true multiple times including the dyno article I linked.

 

You are absolutely correct! https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Horsepower

 

Drivetrain losses are a PERCENTAGE. Not a hard number of HP's. Sure you can easily lose 100 HP in the drivetrain - if you are making 900+ CHP you will easily lose that much. Also has to do with the dyno operator, settings they used, what gear it was run in, and a host of other factors. Was it 100 degrees in the dyno bay that day? How many pulls did they do in a row? How much heat soak factor are we talking about?

You really have no idea what you are talking about and that just becomes more clear as you continue to respond to our attempts at educating you. Have YOU ever put a car on a dyno? I'm about to head down to MY performance shop and do some pulls on MY $150,000 AWD chassis dyno this afternoon. Do you suppose I *might* know a bit about this subject?

And yeah - of course I skimmed it "real quick" - this is just a response for funzies to an outlandish internet claim by a kid that clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. I could tell immediately within a few sentences of your first post that you have some severe confirmation bias. You have only suspicions and comparisons with no actual test data and no actual knowledge of what's even in the car - you only believe that it's a stock LG4 based on how it "appears" and you only believe it makes more power based on how your butt dyno "feel".... unfortunately that's not science kid.

GD

 

Break it down for me sensei, unlike some of the other folks in this thread I'll actually read what you post before responding to it.

 

Internet Forums generate more folklore and BS on chassis dyno figures than anywhere else. Simply put, it's an unscientific way to measure horsepower. There are 4 main chassis dyno (equipment) manufacturers, and thousands of variables in operators and how the tests are performed. Then, the "correction" factors, which the best ones create what's known as "Brag Sheets" when factors such as "Standard Corrected" factors are applied, inflating numbers. Dyno sheet bench racing is awesome. /sarcasm.