Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
06-02-2011, 08:11 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: RVA
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 89RS,89TBI FB, 91Z28, 89TPI FORMULA
Engine: 357 SBC TPI
Transmission: World Class T-5 (for now)
Axle/Gears: Strange 12-bolt 3.73
Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
Disclaimer: The title may be a bit misleading, the dyno run was for the bolt-on improvements as I did not have the stock engine to test.
Finally got around to measuring how much power I've gained vs how much money I've spent. Based on the GM Firebird Formula 350 sales brochure, is the factory HP/TQ numbers. I don't believe they state engine result or rear-wheel result, however my results have both as well as a complete list of the upgrades I've made to this point. Keep in mind that 2 days after this dyno run was made, I removed the stock ECM & engine harness and installed the EZ-EFI system noted here: https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/dfi-...i-install.html Here are my results based on the stock ECM and my bolt-ons:
Pontiac Sales Brochure (see attachment) states 235HP/330TQ for Formula 350
Bolt On Improvements to my 1989 Firebird Formula:
*original 305 was damaged beyond repair and replaced as noted
Jasper Reman Class II Chevy S/B 350 (357 cid; 4.045 bore x 3.48 stroke)
-1.5 ration stamped rocker arms
-Dart Iron Eagle SS 165 heads
-Comp Cams 08-302-8 hyd rol
-Speed Pro pistons
-Cloyes double roller timing chain
-GMPP 6.75” steel balancer
-Sealed Power hyd rol lifters
-Federal Mogul rod bearings
-ARP connecting rod bolts
-Dura-Bond cam bearings
-Melling HV oil pump
-Speed Pro comp series main bearings
-new clutch, resurfaced flywheel
-MSD 6A Ignition box, Blaster 2 GM Coil, 8.5 Super Conductor wires, HEI Dist
-Edelbrock Jet-Hot headers (1 5/8, 2.5)
-true dual 2 ½” exhaust (w/ cats)
-FastChip PROM
-170* thermo w/ manual fan switch
-TB coolant bypass
-A/C & A.I.R. delete
-K& N Filter/open “air box”
-AS&M runners
-ported Superram intake manifold
-ported plenum
-Summit 52mm throttle body
-descreened MAF sensor
-Edelbrock Hi-Perf 67gph fuel pump
-Holley adjustable fuel press reg
-30 lb Venom fuel injectors
-Edelbrock Victor Hi-Flo waterpump
-March polished underdrive pulleys
-aluminum Be Cool radiator
-6* base timing
-open Power Bulge Hood
Dyno Results:
-measured at rear wheels: 282.4 HP/399 TQ (see graph attached)
-calculated flywheel (15% DLL): 332 HP/469 TQ
TGO has been good to me with it's vast wealth of knowledge of helpful members. Thanks to all who helped me thus far!
Eric
Finally got around to measuring how much power I've gained vs how much money I've spent. Based on the GM Firebird Formula 350 sales brochure, is the factory HP/TQ numbers. I don't believe they state engine result or rear-wheel result, however my results have both as well as a complete list of the upgrades I've made to this point. Keep in mind that 2 days after this dyno run was made, I removed the stock ECM & engine harness and installed the EZ-EFI system noted here: https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/dfi-...i-install.html Here are my results based on the stock ECM and my bolt-ons:
Pontiac Sales Brochure (see attachment) states 235HP/330TQ for Formula 350
Bolt On Improvements to my 1989 Firebird Formula:
*original 305 was damaged beyond repair and replaced as noted
Jasper Reman Class II Chevy S/B 350 (357 cid; 4.045 bore x 3.48 stroke)
-1.5 ration stamped rocker arms
-Dart Iron Eagle SS 165 heads
-Comp Cams 08-302-8 hyd rol
-Speed Pro pistons
-Cloyes double roller timing chain
-GMPP 6.75” steel balancer
-Sealed Power hyd rol lifters
-Federal Mogul rod bearings
-ARP connecting rod bolts
-Dura-Bond cam bearings
-Melling HV oil pump
-Speed Pro comp series main bearings
-new clutch, resurfaced flywheel
-MSD 6A Ignition box, Blaster 2 GM Coil, 8.5 Super Conductor wires, HEI Dist
-Edelbrock Jet-Hot headers (1 5/8, 2.5)
-true dual 2 ½” exhaust (w/ cats)
-FastChip PROM
-170* thermo w/ manual fan switch
-TB coolant bypass
-A/C & A.I.R. delete
-K& N Filter/open “air box”
-AS&M runners
-ported Superram intake manifold
-ported plenum
-Summit 52mm throttle body
-descreened MAF sensor
-Edelbrock Hi-Perf 67gph fuel pump
-Holley adjustable fuel press reg
-30 lb Venom fuel injectors
-Edelbrock Victor Hi-Flo waterpump
-March polished underdrive pulleys
-aluminum Be Cool radiator
-6* base timing
-open Power Bulge Hood
Dyno Results:
-measured at rear wheels: 282.4 HP/399 TQ (see graph attached)
-calculated flywheel (15% DLL): 332 HP/469 TQ
TGO has been good to me with it's vast wealth of knowledge of helpful members. Thanks to all who helped me thus far!
Eric
06-15-2011, 03:21 PM
#2
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
Those are some good numbers considering stock type replacement heads and that mild cam! Good job!
My "Full" bolt on L98 made 254whp running very lean. Only mod that i didnt have thats common with bolt ons is an electric waterpump. It had HSR intake, 1.6 rockers, headers/exhaust/gutted airbox and MAF, underdrive pulleys, etc. Tune was just alittle off.
My "Full" bolt on L98 made 254whp running very lean. Only mod that i didnt have thats common with bolt ons is an electric waterpump. It had HSR intake, 1.6 rockers, headers/exhaust/gutted airbox and MAF, underdrive pulleys, etc. Tune was just alittle off.
06-15-2011, 03:58 PM
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: RVA
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 89RS,89TBI FB, 91Z28, 89TPI FORMULA
Engine: 357 SBC TPI
Transmission: World Class T-5 (for now)
Axle/Gears: Strange 12-bolt 3.73
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
Orr! Nice to talk to you again my friend.
I'm in the middle of trying to get the EZ-EFI system to work on my car, great stuff I must say. Still ironing out the kinks then back to the dyno with that combo and EZ setup. I still have half the parts in the garage for the AFR head/cam swap, always seems like something jumps up and moves that project back a little.
Thank you for the compliment.
I'm in the middle of trying to get the EZ-EFI system to work on my car, great stuff I must say. Still ironing out the kinks then back to the dyno with that combo and EZ setup. I still have half the parts in the garage for the AFR head/cam swap, always seems like something jumps up and moves that project back a little.
Thank you for the compliment.
06-15-2011, 04:22 PM
#4
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
With a stick shift and that 400lbft of torque at the tires, thats gotta be one fun combo. Still quick enough to squeeze a high 12 out of it if you can launch it hard and have good air. Not a bad setup at all.
Glad to hear the EZ-EFi is workin out well or atleast so far. Do you need a base map to get that system to start and run the car initially? Thats always the hardest part for me. Just getting a base tune to start a setup.
Glad to hear the EZ-EFi is workin out well or atleast so far. Do you need a base map to get that system to start and run the car initially? Thats always the hardest part for me. Just getting a base tune to start a setup.
06-15-2011, 05:45 PM
#6
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: RVA
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 89RS,89TBI FB, 91Z28, 89TPI FORMULA
Engine: 357 SBC TPI
Transmission: World Class T-5 (for now)
Axle/Gears: Strange 12-bolt 3.73
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
Thanks 89TA.
Orr, it is fun to drive. I'm thinking if it can hit 357fwhp (1 horse/1 cube) and 500fwtq, I'd probably stop there and not do the heads & cam. Although, I do have that cam we had discussed a couple years go (don't have the pn handy) as well as a set of Crane Gold 1.6s on hand. I may investigate how far these heads can go, I dunno. One step at a time.
I do not need a base map as this is one of those "self tuning" systems. It does a remarkable job; the handheld readout and wideband O2 are SO handy. It was a rough initial firing, but after a couple hours of me trying to get the timing and idle set right, it took over. Doing any actual "tuning" (tuning out the problem areas mostly) is pretty simple. Read instructions, plug in solution, drive, repeat until you get it dialed in.
What I do need is help from anyone that knows why my fuel pump takes a dump after an hour.
Orr, it is fun to drive. I'm thinking if it can hit 357fwhp (1 horse/1 cube) and 500fwtq, I'd probably stop there and not do the heads & cam. Although, I do have that cam we had discussed a couple years go (don't have the pn handy) as well as a set of Crane Gold 1.6s on hand. I may investigate how far these heads can go, I dunno. One step at a time.
I do not need a base map as this is one of those "self tuning" systems. It does a remarkable job; the handheld readout and wideband O2 are SO handy. It was a rough initial firing, but after a couple hours of me trying to get the timing and idle set right, it took over. Doing any actual "tuning" (tuning out the problem areas mostly) is pretty simple. Read instructions, plug in solution, drive, repeat until you get it dialed in.
What I do need is help from anyone that knows why my fuel pump takes a dump after an hour.
06-15-2011, 11:58 PM
#7
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
Not sure on the pump issue but for more power, only things I can think of are possibly 1.6 rockers if the heads can handle the extra lift, and keep on working the tuning/timing to see if you can squeeze more out of it.
Possibly abit better header design as I have heard on here that edelbrock shorties are abit restrictive compared to some others....Not sure what mufflers you have but few ponies may be in there with a cutout in the right location or a higher flowing muffler.
Either way It looks good where its at. It would be awesome to see another 15whp to hit the 300whp mark with such a mild setup.
Possibly abit better header design as I have heard on here that edelbrock shorties are abit restrictive compared to some others....Not sure what mufflers you have but few ponies may be in there with a cutout in the right location or a higher flowing muffler.
Either way It looks good where its at. It would be awesome to see another 15whp to hit the 300whp mark with such a mild setup.
Trending Topics
10-28-2011, 02:30 PM
#8
Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Chickamauga, GA
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 89 IROC-Z
Engine: 355ci SBC
Transmission: TH700R4 - 2500 stall
Axle/Gears: 3.70 9 bolt
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
Disclaimer: The title may be a bit misleading, the dyno run was for the bolt-on improvements as I did not have the stock engine to test.
Finally got around to measuring how much power I've gained vs how much money I've spent. Based on the GM Firebird Formula 350 sales brochure, is the factory HP/TQ numbers. I don't believe they state engine result or rear-wheel result, however my results have both as well as a complete list of the upgrades I've made to this point. Keep in mind that 2 days after this dyno run was made, I removed the stock ECM & engine harness and installed the EZ-EFI system noted here: https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/dfi-...i-install.html Here are my results based on the stock ECM and my bolt-ons:
Pontiac Sales Brochure (see attachment) states 235HP/330TQ for Formula 350
Bolt On Improvements to my 1989 Firebird Formula:
*original 305 was damaged beyond repair and replaced as noted
Jasper Reman Class II Chevy S/B 350 (357 cid; 4.045 bore x 3.48 stroke)
-1.5 ration stamped rocker arms
-Dart Iron Eagle SS 165 heads
-Comp Cams 08-302-8 hyd rol
-Speed Pro pistons
-Cloyes double roller timing chain
-GMPP 6.75” steel balancer
-Sealed Power hyd rol lifters
-Federal Mogul rod bearings
-ARP connecting rod bolts
-Dura-Bond cam bearings
-Melling HV oil pump
-Speed Pro comp series main bearings
-new clutch, resurfaced flywheel
-MSD 6A Ignition box, Blaster 2 GM Coil, 8.5 Super Conductor wires, HEI Dist
-Edelbrock Jet-Hot headers (1 5/8, 2.5)
-true dual 2 ½” exhaust (w/ cats)
-FastChip PROM
-170* thermo w/ manual fan switch
-TB coolant bypass
-A/C & A.I.R. delete
-K& N Filter/open “air box”
-AS&M runners
-ported Superram intake manifold
-ported plenum
-Summit 52mm throttle body
-descreened MAF sensor
-Edelbrock Hi-Perf 67gph fuel pump
-Holley adjustable fuel press reg
-30 lb Venom fuel injectors
-Edelbrock Victor Hi-Flo waterpump
-March polished underdrive pulleys
-aluminum Be Cool radiator
-6* base timing
-open Power Bulge Hood
Dyno Results:
-measured at rear wheels: 282.4 HP/399 TQ (see graph attached)
-calculated flywheel (15% DLL): 332 HP/469 TQ
TGO has been good to me with it's vast wealth of knowledge of helpful members. Thanks to all who helped me thus far!
Eric
Finally got around to measuring how much power I've gained vs how much money I've spent. Based on the GM Firebird Formula 350 sales brochure, is the factory HP/TQ numbers. I don't believe they state engine result or rear-wheel result, however my results have both as well as a complete list of the upgrades I've made to this point. Keep in mind that 2 days after this dyno run was made, I removed the stock ECM & engine harness and installed the EZ-EFI system noted here: https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/dfi-...i-install.html Here are my results based on the stock ECM and my bolt-ons:
Pontiac Sales Brochure (see attachment) states 235HP/330TQ for Formula 350
Bolt On Improvements to my 1989 Firebird Formula:
*original 305 was damaged beyond repair and replaced as noted
Jasper Reman Class II Chevy S/B 350 (357 cid; 4.045 bore x 3.48 stroke)
-1.5 ration stamped rocker arms
-Dart Iron Eagle SS 165 heads
-Comp Cams 08-302-8 hyd rol
-Speed Pro pistons
-Cloyes double roller timing chain
-GMPP 6.75” steel balancer
-Sealed Power hyd rol lifters
-Federal Mogul rod bearings
-ARP connecting rod bolts
-Dura-Bond cam bearings
-Melling HV oil pump
-Speed Pro comp series main bearings
-new clutch, resurfaced flywheel
-MSD 6A Ignition box, Blaster 2 GM Coil, 8.5 Super Conductor wires, HEI Dist
-Edelbrock Jet-Hot headers (1 5/8, 2.5)
-true dual 2 ½” exhaust (w/ cats)
-FastChip PROM
-170* thermo w/ manual fan switch
-TB coolant bypass
-A/C & A.I.R. delete
-K& N Filter/open “air box”
-AS&M runners
-ported Superram intake manifold
-ported plenum
-Summit 52mm throttle body
-descreened MAF sensor
-Edelbrock Hi-Perf 67gph fuel pump
-Holley adjustable fuel press reg
-30 lb Venom fuel injectors
-Edelbrock Victor Hi-Flo waterpump
-March polished underdrive pulleys
-aluminum Be Cool radiator
-6* base timing
-open Power Bulge Hood
Dyno Results:
-measured at rear wheels: 282.4 HP/399 TQ (see graph attached)
-calculated flywheel (15% DLL): 332 HP/469 TQ
TGO has been good to me with it's vast wealth of knowledge of helpful members. Thanks to all who helped me thus far!
Eric
Jesus! I didn't realize exactly how much torque these motors really make. Thats insane! Just to toss this out there, my old 98 LS1 Z-28 only made 309 RWHP and 297 Ft. Lbs. through an unlocked 4L60E. I had a Patriot 226/226 585/585 112LSA cam, long tube headers, hooker aerochamber catback, LS6 intake and SLP lid with smooth bellow. This was on a mustang dyno too btw.
So your very lightly modded L-98 made over 100 Ft. Lbs more than my LS1 did. Wow! I'm impressed...
10-28-2011, 11:32 PM
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: RVA
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 89RS,89TBI FB, 91Z28, 89TPI FORMULA
Engine: 357 SBC TPI
Transmission: World Class T-5 (for now)
Axle/Gears: Strange 12-bolt 3.73
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
With the aftermarket fuel injection system, I pulled 360hp/517tq calculated at the crank. Fun car to drive on the street,
10-28-2011, 11:38 PM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
Jesus! I didn't realize exactly how much torque these motors really make. Thats insane! Just to toss this out there, my old 98 LS1 Z-28 only made 309 RWHP and 297 Ft. Lbs. through an unlocked 4L60E. I had a Patriot 226/226 585/585 112LSA cam, long tube headers, hooker aerochamber catback, LS6 intake and SLP lid with smooth bellow. This was on a mustang dyno too btw.
So your very lightly modded L-98 made over 100 Ft. Lbs more than my LS1 did. Wow! I'm impressed...
So your very lightly modded L-98 made over 100 Ft. Lbs more than my LS1 did. Wow! I'm impressed...
10-29-2011, 09:23 AM
#11
Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Chickamauga, GA
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 89 IROC-Z
Engine: 355ci SBC
Transmission: TH700R4 - 2500 stall
Axle/Gears: 3.70 9 bolt
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
Beats the hell out of me. The car ran damn strong, it ran neck to neck with my buddies 05 Z-51 corvette A6 till about 100mph then he would slowly pull away. And my tuner said that was about average for a mild cammed LS1 on his dyno... Cause I was like WTF when I saw those numbers too. Wish I had drag strip numbers to really see what it had but I grenaded the stock tranny then sold it. So who knows... either the dyno was retarded or something was jacked with the car. I agree....
10-29-2011, 10:16 AM
#12
Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 88 Iroc-z
Engine: ls1
Transmission: t56
Axle/Gears: 3.42
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
Jesus! I didn't realize exactly how much torque these motors really make. Thats insane! Just to toss this out there, my old 98 LS1 Z-28 only made 309 RWHP and 297 Ft. Lbs. through an unlocked 4L60E. I had a Patriot 226/226 585/585 112LSA cam, long tube headers, hooker aerochamber catback, LS6 intake and SLP lid with smooth bellow. This was on a mustang dyno too btw.
So your very lightly modded L-98 made over 100 Ft. Lbs more than my LS1 did. Wow! I'm impressed...
So your very lightly modded L-98 made over 100 Ft. Lbs more than my LS1 did. Wow! I'm impressed...
10-29-2011, 12:12 PM
#13
Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Chickamauga, GA
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 89 IROC-Z
Engine: 355ci SBC
Transmission: TH700R4 - 2500 stall
Axle/Gears: 3.70 9 bolt
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
Quite a bit more powerful actually, and for a 98 thats a good 30 to 40 RWHP gain over what they typically dyno. The cam I had wasn't a big power maker though, if I went with something more aggressive with a stall the numbers would have been much higher. Have to remember that was a mustang dyno, those usually don't show amazing numbers like a dynojet. My 01 SS made alot more power but it's a M6 with heads and a much bigger cam. Despite what it put down the car ran very well.
10-29-2011, 02:09 PM
#14
Supreme Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,804
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 1988 Flame Red Trans am GTA
Engine: Forged 355 4 Bolt, FIRST TPI
Transmission: 700r4
Axle/Gears: ls1 torsen 3.42 gear
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
all i gotta say is i love my setup.... love the torque man, it feels good on the street where the engine spends most its life at lower rpms.... cant beat a nice tpi setup...
10-30-2011, 12:33 PM
#15
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: RVA
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 89RS,89TBI FB, 91Z28, 89TPI FORMULA
Engine: 357 SBC TPI
Transmission: World Class T-5 (for now)
Axle/Gears: Strange 12-bolt 3.73
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
I couldn't agree more 88.
10-30-2011, 01:51 PM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
04-30-2012, 01:41 PM
#17
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
Hi guys, old thread, but just wanted to post that this weekend my stock 89 Formula 350 did 205 rwhp/300tq on the portable dyno set up at Old Town in Orlando. It's stock cept for MSD 6A and coil. Stock exhaust manifolds, single original cat and an aftermarket muffler, Seems based on the brochure Boss that it is still holding it's own based on the factory flywheel numbers.
02-08-2020, 11:21 PM
#19
Supreme Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Park City, UT
Posts: 1,865
Received 261 Likes
on
182 Posts
Car: '92 Corvette
Engine: LT1
Transmission: ZF6
Axle/Gears: 3.45
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
Good RW numbers though....especially the tq. That will be a thrill ride.
02-09-2020, 08:13 AM
#20
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
plus some dynos read high. 12-18% loss for some manual trans cars isnt out of the question imo. Auto cars even more
02-09-2020, 11:41 AM
#21
Supreme Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Park City, UT
Posts: 1,865
Received 261 Likes
on
182 Posts
Car: '92 Corvette
Engine: LT1
Transmission: ZF6
Axle/Gears: 3.45
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
Box-stock, C6 (LS2) Corvette; 366 RWHP/400hp/9%
'05 CTS-V (LS6): 338 RWHP/400hp/15%
'92 LT1 'Vette; 279 RWHP/300hp/7%
'89 'Vette Kart (L98 Corvette with dual exhaust added/no air filter) 250 RWHP/245 hp/0%
The Caddy did worse than the C6 because everything is so heavy; flywheel is over 40 lbs, Drive shaft is ~50 lbs, wheels are heavy, 6 lug hubs, 14" rear rotors...
The Kart did good b/c of the exhaust. But did it do ~40 hp better from manifolds back, exhaust? I doubt it.
People constantly claim big crank numbers b/c of "15% loss" or what ever. Either everyone is getting REALLY impressive numbers....or the %conversion is off. I say it's off. My stock C6 wasn't making 421 chp, my '92 LT1 isn't making 321 chp, and I don't think the Kart is making 287 chp. Nope.
C6 trapped 112 at 4200'
C4 traps 101/102ish at 4200'
Caddy Trapped 104 at 4200'
-All in line with their respective CHP ratings and weight.
02-09-2020, 01:18 PM
#22
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
Well..."some dynos read high" is the same as saying 15% is too much.
But i agree its hard to figure loss values and estimate crank numbers. Usually go by fuel calcs and assumed bsfc efficiencies.
most manual cars are relatively low on loss %. New lock up autos are good to tho. 2018ss camaro 8spd auto however made 396 stock. 455 rated, that would be 13%. Which is pretty good for an automatic.
02-09-2020, 01:50 PM
#23
Supreme Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Park City, UT
Posts: 1,865
Received 261 Likes
on
182 Posts
Car: '92 Corvette
Engine: LT1
Transmission: ZF6
Axle/Gears: 3.45
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
I agree here too. Based on my experiences, I'm at 9-10% for most stick shift cars.
02-09-2020, 08:35 PM
#24
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hurst, Texas
Posts: 9,969
Received 379 Likes
on
323 Posts
Car: 1983 G20 Chevy
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 14 bolt with 3.07 gears
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
700r4/4L60E and a 10-bolt is roughly 18%. T-5/T-56 with a 10-bolt is about 15%. I can show you atleast 10 different stock truck dyno-s with a 4L60E and 8.5 10-bolt that work out to 20-22% loss.
My 2011 M56S Infiniti made 382/390 at the wheels with a 420/424 crank rating on a Mustang dyno. My 2012 Titan made 293 rwhp and 340 rwtq on a Mustang dyno STOCK and it was crank rated 317 HP and 385 TQ. I don't believe either drivetrain was that efficient at all.
4L80E and a corporate 14-bolt is about 25% loss. My 383 recently made 396 rwhp trough a 4L85E in 2nd gear and a 5.13 geared full float 14-bolt. Every bit of a 500 hp crank engine.
FWIW my stone stock 2014 Nissan Sentra with its whole 135 hp and a 6-speed made 119 rwhp at 107K miles. Stock plugs even. Only mod being a K&N drop-in. After tuning it made 138. I believe the drivetrain loss being very low in a FWD stick application. Not so much in a RWD. Doesn't seem like much of a power gain but it really woke the car up with its low gearing and light weight.
My 2011 M56S Infiniti made 382/390 at the wheels with a 420/424 crank rating on a Mustang dyno. My 2012 Titan made 293 rwhp and 340 rwtq on a Mustang dyno STOCK and it was crank rated 317 HP and 385 TQ. I don't believe either drivetrain was that efficient at all.
4L80E and a corporate 14-bolt is about 25% loss. My 383 recently made 396 rwhp trough a 4L85E in 2nd gear and a 5.13 geared full float 14-bolt. Every bit of a 500 hp crank engine.
FWIW my stone stock 2014 Nissan Sentra with its whole 135 hp and a 6-speed made 119 rwhp at 107K miles. Stock plugs even. Only mod being a K&N drop-in. After tuning it made 138. I believe the drivetrain loss being very low in a FWD stick application. Not so much in a RWD. Doesn't seem like much of a power gain but it really woke the car up with its low gearing and light weight.
Last edited by Fast355; 02-09-2020 at 08:42 PM.
02-09-2020, 08:50 PM
#25
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hurst, Texas
Posts: 9,969
Received 379 Likes
on
323 Posts
Car: 1983 G20 Chevy
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 14 bolt with 3.07 gears
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
Well..."some dynos read high" is the same as saying 15% is too much. For a Dynojet, it's too much. Here are the cars that I've dyno'ed on Dynojets....all Box stock except for the Kart: RWHP/OEM Crank hp/% loss
Box-stock, C6 (LS2) Corvette; 366 RWHP/400hp/9%
'05 CTS-V (LS6): 338 RWHP/400hp/15%
'92 LT1 'Vette; 279 RWHP/300hp/7%
'89 'Vette Kart (L98 Corvette with dual exhaust added/no air filter) 250 RWHP/245 hp/0%
The Caddy did worse than the C6 because everything is so heavy; flywheel is over 40 lbs, Drive shaft is ~50 lbs, wheels are heavy, 6 lug hubs, 14" rear rotors...
The Kart did good b/c of the exhaust. But did it do ~40 hp better from manifolds back, exhaust? I doubt it.
People constantly claim big crank numbers b/c of "15% loss" or what ever. Either everyone is getting REALLY impressive numbers....or the %conversion is off. I say it's off. My stock C6 wasn't making 421 chp, my '92 LT1 isn't making 321 chp, and I don't think the Kart is making 287 chp. Nope.
C6 trapped 112 at 4200'
C4 traps 101/102ish at 4200'
Caddy Trapped 104 at 4200'
-All in line with their respective CHP ratings and weight.
Box-stock, C6 (LS2) Corvette; 366 RWHP/400hp/9%
'05 CTS-V (LS6): 338 RWHP/400hp/15%
'92 LT1 'Vette; 279 RWHP/300hp/7%
'89 'Vette Kart (L98 Corvette with dual exhaust added/no air filter) 250 RWHP/245 hp/0%
The Caddy did worse than the C6 because everything is so heavy; flywheel is over 40 lbs, Drive shaft is ~50 lbs, wheels are heavy, 6 lug hubs, 14" rear rotors...
The Kart did good b/c of the exhaust. But did it do ~40 hp better from manifolds back, exhaust? I doubt it.
People constantly claim big crank numbers b/c of "15% loss" or what ever. Either everyone is getting REALLY impressive numbers....or the %conversion is off. I say it's off. My stock C6 wasn't making 421 chp, my '92 LT1 isn't making 321 chp, and I don't think the Kart is making 287 chp. Nope.
C6 trapped 112 at 4200'
C4 traps 101/102ish at 4200'
Caddy Trapped 104 at 4200'
-All in line with their respective CHP ratings and weight.
http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/eng...-modifications
Stock 285hp 5.3s are well over 300 hp on an engine dyno. I had a bone stock junkyard fresh LM7 with a carb intake and headers making 350 hp on an engine dyno.
02-09-2020, 10:04 PM
#26
Supreme Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Park City, UT
Posts: 1,865
Received 261 Likes
on
182 Posts
Car: '92 Corvette
Engine: LT1
Transmission: ZF6
Axle/Gears: 3.45
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
I can't believe that this needs to be explained....
NFW. Show me. My LT1/ZF6(35 lb flywheel)/D44/IRS does ~9%...and your going to say that a lighter flywheel, smaller trans w/smaller gears and a 7.5" 10 bolt is 5% less efficient?? No. It's not.
So, 8% drivetrain loss? Seems pretty efficient to me. You're making my own case here...and with a Mustang Dyno, to boot.
Ahhh....do you know the difference between GROSS engine hp and NET engine HP? It doesn't seem like you do. My '92 LT1 (like all cars after ~1972 or so) is rated 300 fwhp NET. Typical engine dyno set up are sans accessories, exhaust, intakes etc. So, your examples, to me, aren't legitimate. And I'll direct you back to my trap speed in the 1/4 mile for both my LS2 C6, and the LT1 C4. 
NFW. Show me. My LT1/ZF6(35 lb flywheel)/D44/IRS does ~9%...and your going to say that a lighter flywheel, smaller trans w/smaller gears and a 7.5" 10 bolt is 5% less efficient?? No. It's not.
Would not be so quick to say your LT1 is not in the 320 hp range stock.
http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/eng...-modifications
Stock 285hp 5.3s are well over 300 hp on an engine dyno. I had a bone stock junkyard fresh LM7 with a carb intake and headers making 350 hp on an engine dyno.
http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/eng...-modifications
Stock 285hp 5.3s are well over 300 hp on an engine dyno. I had a bone stock junkyard fresh LM7 with a carb intake and headers making 350 hp on an engine dyno.
02-09-2020, 10:28 PM
#27
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hurst, Texas
Posts: 9,969
Received 379 Likes
on
323 Posts
Car: 1983 G20 Chevy
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 14 bolt with 3.07 gears
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
I can't believe that this needs to be explained....
NFW. Show me. My LT1/ZF6(35 lb flywheel)/D44/IRS does ~9%...and your going to say that a lighter flywheel, smaller trans w/smaller gears and a 7.5" 10 bolt is 5% less efficient?? No. It's not.
So, 8% drivetrain loss? Seems pretty efficient to me. You're making my own case here...and with a Mustang Dyno, to boot.
Ahhh....do you know the difference between GROSS engine hp and NET engine HP? It doesn't seem like you do. My '92 LT1 (like all cars after ~1972 or so) is rated 300 fwhp NET. Typical engine dyno set up are sans accessories, exhaust, intakes etc. So, your examples, to me, aren't legitimate. And I'll direct you back to my trap speed in the 1/4 mile for both my LS2 C6, and the LT1 C4.
NFW. Show me. My LT1/ZF6(35 lb flywheel)/D44/IRS does ~9%...and your going to say that a lighter flywheel, smaller trans w/smaller gears and a 7.5" 10 bolt is 5% less efficient?? No. It's not.
So, 8% drivetrain loss? Seems pretty efficient to me. You're making my own case here...and with a Mustang Dyno, to boot.
Ahhh....do you know the difference between GROSS engine hp and NET engine HP? It doesn't seem like you do. My '92 LT1 (like all cars after ~1972 or so) is rated 300 fwhp NET. Typical engine dyno set up are sans accessories, exhaust, intakes etc. So, your examples, to me, aren't legitimate. And I'll direct you back to my trap speed in the 1/4 mile for both my LS2 C6, and the LT1 C4.
M56S race weight was 4,700 lbs with me in it. Car went 109 mph.
The drivetrain loss is much higher than 9% or whatever in both of those vehicles.
VK56 was under rated, period. Its well documented the net HP is more like 360 crank than the 317 rating. One went on an engine dyno with nothing more than headers and made 420 hp gross and 480 tq. The M56 is more like 450 net hp than 420.
My stock L31/4L60E/8.5" 10-bolt put down 180 rwhp and 250 rwtq with a 245/335 crank rating. Trap speed was 78 mph at 6,100 lbs race weight. I figure the Mustang dyno reads about 10% low. Meaning I would have been in the 195-200 hp range with the stock driveline. 21-22% loss rather than 30%.
In fact all of these results fall more in line with the trap speed if you adjust them for the 10% lower reading of the Mustang dyno.
ET/MPH calculator shows the Mustang dyno is reading low in HP in all 3 examples. The M56 would need 410 wheel hp to trap 109 mph. The Titan more than 310 hp. The Express van 200 hp. Thats negating the brick like aero of the truck/van.
With stock vortec heads, mercruiser 300 hp cam and intake manifold, headers & full exhaust my L31 made 230 hp and 304 tq at the ground through the 4L85E and a 9.5" 14-bolt. Marine engine makes 300 hp and 380 tq in stock form.
I completely understand the difference between gross and net. The LT1 in question was about as close to gross as you are going to see on an engine dyno. Alternator eats maybe 1-2 hp at full output and the p/s pump about the same going straight down the road. A/C compressor if the clutch is off essentially has a freewheeling idler. The slower the acceleration rate on the pull the less hp the accessories eat.
Last edited by Fast355; 02-09-2020 at 10:47 PM.
02-10-2020, 08:08 AM
#29
Supreme Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Park City, UT
Posts: 1,865
Received 261 Likes
on
182 Posts
Car: '92 Corvette
Engine: LT1
Transmission: ZF6
Axle/Gears: 3.45
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
94 mph trap speed in a 5,350 lbs truck says its making more power than rated.
M56S race weight was 4,700 lbs with me in it. Car went 109 mph.
The drivetrain loss is much higher than 9% or whatever in both of those vehicles.
VK56 was under rated, period. Its well documented the net HP is more like 360 crank than the 317 rating. One went on an engine dyno with nothing more than headers and made 420 hp gross and 480 tq. The M56 is more like 450 net hp than 420.
My stock L31/4L60E/8.5" 10-bolt put down 180 rwhp and 250 rwtq with a 245/335 crank rating. Trap speed was 78 mph at 6,100 lbs race weight. I figure the Mustang dyno reads about 10% low. Meaning I would have been in the 195-200 hp range with the stock driveline. 21-22% loss rather than 30%.
In fact all of these results fall more in line with the trap speed if you adjust them for the 10% lower reading of the Mustang dyno.
ET/MPH calculator shows the Mustang dyno is reading low in HP in all 3 examples. The M56 would need 410 wheel hp to trap 109 mph. The Titan more than 310 hp. The Express van 200 hp. Thats negating the brick like aero of the truck/van.
With stock vortec heads, mercruiser 300 hp cam and intake manifold, headers & full exhaust my L31 made 230 hp and 304 tq at the ground through the 4L85E and a 9.5" 14-bolt. Marine engine makes 300 hp and 380 tq in stock form.
I completely understand the difference between gross and net. The LT1 in question was about as close to gross as you are going to see on an engine dyno. Alternator eats maybe 1-2 hp at full output and the p/s pump about the same going straight down the road. A/C compressor if the clutch is off essentially has a freewheeling idler. The slower the acceleration rate on the pull the less hp the accessories eat.
M56S race weight was 4,700 lbs with me in it. Car went 109 mph.
The drivetrain loss is much higher than 9% or whatever in both of those vehicles.
VK56 was under rated, period. Its well documented the net HP is more like 360 crank than the 317 rating. One went on an engine dyno with nothing more than headers and made 420 hp gross and 480 tq. The M56 is more like 450 net hp than 420.
My stock L31/4L60E/8.5" 10-bolt put down 180 rwhp and 250 rwtq with a 245/335 crank rating. Trap speed was 78 mph at 6,100 lbs race weight. I figure the Mustang dyno reads about 10% low. Meaning I would have been in the 195-200 hp range with the stock driveline. 21-22% loss rather than 30%.
In fact all of these results fall more in line with the trap speed if you adjust them for the 10% lower reading of the Mustang dyno.
ET/MPH calculator shows the Mustang dyno is reading low in HP in all 3 examples. The M56 would need 410 wheel hp to trap 109 mph. The Titan more than 310 hp. The Express van 200 hp. Thats negating the brick like aero of the truck/van.
With stock vortec heads, mercruiser 300 hp cam and intake manifold, headers & full exhaust my L31 made 230 hp and 304 tq at the ground through the 4L85E and a 9.5" 14-bolt. Marine engine makes 300 hp and 380 tq in stock form.
I completely understand the difference between gross and net. The LT1 in question was about as close to gross as you are going to see on an engine dyno. Alternator eats maybe 1-2 hp at full output and the p/s pump about the same going straight down the road. A/C compressor if the clutch is off essentially has a freewheeling idler. The slower the acceleration rate on the pull the less hp the accessories eat.
What I DO care about in this discussion are things that are known. We need a KNOWN, reliable baseline from which we can make our fw vs rwhp comparisons.
GM's Cert'ed engine ratings are pretty reliable. The LS2, LT1, LS6 and L98 that *I* referenced are very well documented engines (by GM, millions of drag track passes and chassis dynos). We all know how much power all those engines make...and none of 'em are "over rated". They're not. Linking an LT1 on an engine dyno w/no accessories @316hp and saying it's underrated is folly, and so are your claims for accessory drag. Engine Masters (and others) have done controlled tests specifically on these things so we know that data, too. 90's 'Vette LT1's are not over rated and neither are the other engines that I showed as examples.
SO...with that as a known, we look at the RWHP for each of those and what do we see for drive train losses? About 10% or so. We don't see pie-in-the-sky, numbers like 18%, 22% etc. We see numbers closer to 10%.
Last edited by Tom 400 CFI; 02-10-2020 at 08:31 AM.
02-10-2020, 09:14 AM
#30
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hurst, Texas
Posts: 9,969
Received 379 Likes
on
323 Posts
Car: 1983 G20 Chevy
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 14 bolt with 3.07 gears
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
I'm not going to get sucked into wild predictions about modified vans of unknown hp. I don't care about your vans, boat engines and all your rationalizations for their hp's etc. I respect what you've done with them, but they don't fit into this discussion. Sorry.
What I DO care about in this discussion are things that are known. We need a KNOWN, reliable baseline from which we can make our fw vs rwhp comparisons.
GM's Cert'ed engine ratings are pretty reliable. The LS2, LT1, LS6 and L98 that *I* referenced are very well documented engines (by GM, millions of drag track passes and chassis dynos). We all know how much power all those engines make...and none of 'em are "over rated". They're not. Linking an LT1 on an engine dyno w/no accessories @316hp and saying it's underrated is folly, and so are your claims for accessory drag. Engine Masters (and others) have done controlled tests specifically on these things so we know that data, too. 90's 'Vette LT1's are not over rated and neither are the other engines that I showed as examples.
SO...with that as a known, we look at the RWHP for each of those and what do we see for drive train losses? About 10% or so. We don't see pie-in-the-sky, numbers like 18%, 22% etc. We see numbers closer to 10%.
What I DO care about in this discussion are things that are known. We need a KNOWN, reliable baseline from which we can make our fw vs rwhp comparisons.
GM's Cert'ed engine ratings are pretty reliable. The LS2, LT1, LS6 and L98 that *I* referenced are very well documented engines (by GM, millions of drag track passes and chassis dynos). We all know how much power all those engines make...and none of 'em are "over rated". They're not. Linking an LT1 on an engine dyno w/no accessories @316hp and saying it's underrated is folly, and so are your claims for accessory drag. Engine Masters (and others) have done controlled tests specifically on these things so we know that data, too. 90's 'Vette LT1's are not over rated and neither are the other engines that I showed as examples.
SO...with that as a known, we look at the RWHP for each of those and what do we see for drive train losses? About 10% or so. We don't see pie-in-the-sky, numbers like 18%, 22% etc. We see numbers closer to 10%.
The marine 350 rating was a net rating from GM.
02-10-2020, 09:30 AM
#31
Supreme Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Park City, UT
Posts: 1,865
Received 261 Likes
on
182 Posts
Car: '92 Corvette
Engine: LT1
Transmission: ZF6
Axle/Gears: 3.45
Re: Dyno results: Stock vs Bolt-Ons
This doesn't even matter for this discussion (it's minutia) but it's so ridiculous I have to comment.
Do you know what NET ratings are? It doesn't seem like it. It means AS INSTALLED. How is GM going to provide a NET rating on an engine that they don't install, with accessories they didn't put on, in a vehicle (boat) that they aren't building? THINK. The boat engine vendor is who applies the final, NET rating for the particular boat the engine goes into, after working with the Boat builder on the install, calibration, accessories, etc. GM can't possibly give a net rating on an marine engine; they have no idea what the install is! Best GM can do is give a very general long block gross rating. But again...marine engines have absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. Here is a good read on HP ratings; GROSS, NET and WHEEL.
Yep. That's not true. Maybe at 2000 RPM that's true, but not at typical HP peaks. You're right though, we needn't argue about this...like I said, this data is readily available.
Let's look at it this way: I originally commented to the OP that his claims were optimistic based on 15%. I used my 'Vette as an example. His car made 3 more RWHP than mine did. He has a smaller trans, lighter flywheel, smaller diff, solid axle -all that should add up to less loss, than my drivetrain on an intertia dyno. SO...are you saying that I have a 320+hp "ringer" LT1? Are you saying that my LS2 was a 420hp "ringer" also? And my 'Kart's L98 is also a 280hp "ringer"?
I must be one hell of a lucky guy! Every car that I touch is a "ringer"! Right? No. Not right. Look at the trap speeds.
Do you know what NET ratings are? It doesn't seem like it. It means AS INSTALLED. How is GM going to provide a NET rating on an engine that they don't install, with accessories they didn't put on, in a vehicle (boat) that they aren't building? THINK. The boat engine vendor is who applies the final, NET rating for the particular boat the engine goes into, after working with the Boat builder on the install, calibration, accessories, etc. GM can't possibly give a net rating on an marine engine; they have no idea what the install is! Best GM can do is give a very general long block gross rating. But again...marine engines have absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. Here is a good read on HP ratings; GROSS, NET and WHEEL.
Let's look at it this way: I originally commented to the OP that his claims were optimistic based on 15%. I used my 'Vette as an example. His car made 3 more RWHP than mine did. He has a smaller trans, lighter flywheel, smaller diff, solid axle -all that should add up to less loss, than my drivetrain on an intertia dyno. SO...are you saying that I have a 320+hp "ringer" LT1? Are you saying that my LS2 was a 420hp "ringer" also? And my 'Kart's L98 is also a 280hp "ringer"?
I must be one hell of a lucky guy! Every car that I touch is a "ringer"! Right? No. Not right. Look at the trap speeds.
Last edited by Tom 400 CFI; 02-10-2020 at 09:41 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Kwik88
Tech / General Engine
37
04-12-2002 05:44 PM
