WS6FASTTOY

iTrader: (2)

See sig.

SOMSS

iTrader: (1)

Just look in my sig.

5LETR

Lid, Long tubes, y-pipe, under drive pulley, torquer v2, double valve springs, a good tune = 413RWHP SAE

S99TA

look in my sign this is my recipe

GOaT Cheese

Yours is the first one I've read that I might begin to believe is close to accurate.

allngn_c5

iTrader: (3)

You should probably go look at some of the other posts again. There are quite a few legitimate 400 hp cars. When I only had the g5x3 cam I was making 403 rwhp.

GOaT Cheese

Why would a bunch of additional posts convince me? They are mostly B.S. as well. I am a sceptic through and through who has built many many engines, all different makes. I know exactly what it takes to build a "small block" that will put out 500+ horse power (naturally aspirated) at the crank, and honestly, it takes alot more than a list of bolt-ons to do it. The problem here is the dyno opperators, they stretch and scew numbers to get more business, it is a corrupt industry. And people who don't have real world experience building engines, are prone to swallowing their B.S.. Honestly to stirr up a real hornets nest, I doubt that 75% of the people on this board could build a true 500 h.p. engine. Even starting with a factory 400 h.p. LS2, I don't think the average joe here could squeeze out an additional 100 h.p. ( N/A of corse). But their posts that you want me to read would say otherwise.

BriancWS6

iTrader: (18)

WTF is your problem bud? I can tell you that in an M6 car with bolt-ons and a decent sized cam you will net 400+rwhp. There is **** that goes on that isn't accurate, but I can tell you the recipe I speak off is legit, as well as others on here

GOaT Cheese

Legit based on what? Other dyno pulls from other corrupt shops? How about some track times, with trap speeds and 1/8 mile times and speeds? I wanna see track results from each person claiming 400RWHP. It is simple physics, the power output of an engine is easily determined if the trap speed is known, along with vehicle configuration. So lets have it, post the trap speeds to back up these h.p. claims.

allngn_c5

iTrader: (3)

Not true at all. There are some people that can flat out drive, and some that can't. I am in the middle. I drive decent, but there are plenty of people that can drive better, take V-Series for example. He could kill me in the 1/4 with 50 less rwhp because of his driving ability. So you mean to tell me a pro that turns a time up to your expectations because the car was dialed in for track only runs and an avg Joe with a healthy 400 rwhp car and the wrong tires and a bad launch with tons of wheel spin that daily drives the car would be evidence that he/she doesn't have 400 rwhp. You need to go smoke some more of that **** you got. Making accusations about shops being corrupt, you are a real *****. Show some proof before you point the finger. One thing I will agree with you on is that it is a bit funny how hp/tq numbers do vary a bit from dyno to dyno considering that SAE is the standard. So when you find a car that dynos 50 more rwhp or some other obscene number from one dynojet to another or one mustang dyno to another bring it to the forums attention, until then stop making accusations that you can't prove. Dynos are only a tool for tuning and lets leave it at that.

GOaT Cheese

The proof is completely obvious if you choose to see it. I can understand why ones ego requires stroking, you know, I'm better than you type of thing. The laws of physics speak for themselves. Have you ever asked yourself HOW a chassis dyno can measure rear wheel torque? Not horse power but torque? If you know anything at all about power production and measurement you will see exactly where I am coming from. Give me the total race weight (including driver) of your car, and the 1/4 mile trap speed and we can determine relatively easily the true h.p. output of your engine, within a small margin of error of corse.

GTOtoGO

iTrader: (1)

Goat cheese,
For a guy that does not want to hear about dyno numbers, you sure spend alot of time in threads about them.

The last dyno I went to (last week), which was a Dynojet, 4 completly stock LS2 GTO's dyno'ed 340hp, give or take 4 or 5 hp. This car is listed at 400hp at the crank. Is this not accurate considering the drivetrain loss. Dyno racing is more of a tool to monitor effectivness of modifications and a great tuning tool.

i guess weighing yourself is a waste of time as well. I mean were not actually measuring our body fat.

GOaT Cheese

There is an excellent article this month in Popular Hotrodding, it addresses dyno cheats. It is an eye opener, I recomend the read, and with the lessons taught in that article I feal people who actually want to see close to the actual wheel h.p. of their respective vehicles will know what to watch out for while at the dyno shop. For instance they test a '99 'vette rated at 350SAE net crank h.p., the car has a couple minor mods ( air intake, cat back I think etc.) It pulled 273 RWHP. That car is only rated at 50 hp less than your GTO. See my point?

SOMSS

iTrader: (1)

Statistics can be skewed either up or down as desired by changing just one variable. The Dynojet's hp and tq readings are generally a little higher than an eddy flow dyno such as a Mustang. So what, it's a tool used for tuning a car for maximum performance and to measure effectiveness of mods. My SS dyno'd at 411 RWHP on a conservative Dynojet and 409 rwhp on a true eddy current dyno on the same day. The only difference was the temperature was 10º less and humidity 10% less in the afternoon dyno run on the Mustang dyno. It's all relative, dyno racing is for amatures and immature people who need big numbers to make themselves feel good about their cars.

lilbuddy1587

iTrader: (1)

Regardless of what *** cheese says,

I had long tubes, true duals, lid, G5X3 112, PRC duals and a tune and I put down 408/372(dynojet)

Edit- just for you *** cheese, I ALSO ran a 12.3 @ 117.55 with a 2.0 '60 on DR's with that power level and stock 10 bolt.

Mcduffys

iTrader: (2)

Bahahah he said *** cheese!

mcamarols1

iTrader: (9)

back in '98-'99 vettes where overrated, & F-bodys were underrated,there is also a tech article in HotRod Mag of may '98. on the same dyno they pulled both cars (a '98 vette 6m rated@345 & a '98 trans am 6m rated@305) the vette put down 285hp and to every ones surprise the trans am put down 292hp!!! check it out and see for ur self goat. the article can b found here just search i think "777" has it up in the General ET/HP database thread. https://ls1tech.com/forums/showpost....39&postcount=2

PewterScreaminMach

iTrader: (7)

goatcheese,

i would just like to know what mph you think would back up the 400rwhp dyno claim? i'd like to hear your answer before i disclose my so-called proof so you don't just claim a higher number than what i give you.

mcamarols1

iTrader: (9)

also goat cheese in ur sig u state that an f-body only makes 245hp, this shows u havn't followed the the f-body era that still strong as ever, ur just a geek that got an A in physics and u think ur a HP calculator. what if im driving a the ls7 vette shift at 4500 and miss 3rd and give you a 2.5short time, and a 13.8 1/4 mile time @ 99mph, how much hp does my car have? ***??? answer that??

bad2000z

iTrader: (4)

My dad can beat up yer dad!! Everybody has their own agenda. Some guys are just after a dyno#, and some want to go fast. Use the dyno as a tuning tool, and the track to prove it's accurate.