When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
If you honestly think it's making that much power run it at the track and when it traps 160 well just have to scratch our heads and eat crow
A stock ls1 is only going to move so much air, there's no great mystery or math equation involved, at a given amount of cfm it will make a given amount of power. Referencing a physics forum doesn't change the fact that a stock ls1 isn't above 100% volumetric efficiency regardless of what you have pushing the air into it.
Over educated mathematician. He made what he made because he didnt give a ****! slap 2 67mm's on there at 80lbs/min each and its pretty easy to start making power
I'm far from either of those things. This is a very basic concept. Don’t care if he slaps a pair of 116’s on… Mass in = Mass out. A thousand ******* with dyno sheets don’t change the fact!
I’m perfectly happy to let sleeping dogs lie here. Was trying to clear the air for those who wanted to argue the point intelligently as there are some small acceptations to the rule. “He made what he made because he didn’t give a ****… yo” isn’t one of them.
I'm far from either of those things. This is a very basic concept. Don’t care if he slaps a pair of 116’s on… Mass in = Mass out. A thousand ******* with dyno sheets don’t change the fact!
I’m perfectly happy to let sleeping dogs lie here. Was trying to clear the air for those who wanted to argue the point intelligently as there are some small acceptations to the rule. “He made what he made because he didn’t give a ****… yo” isn’t one of them.
On the contrary, Because the numbers are right in front of you regardless of your "math". You mad that a DSMer came in to the LS world and used our cheap DIY tricks to make more power then 90% of you guys with 90% less money? lol id be mad too.
For a manual to trap anywhere near what it's dyno sheet says it better damn well be a good pass and no crap shifting etc. To say it will still trap the same is completely wrong. Time spent off throttle and lack of load in lower gears will play a huge factor in how much average power this car would put down going down the track. I have known of this guy for years in the DSM world and he would have no reason to lie. I'd just about put money on a stock Camaro/vette making the usual 300-320 whp with a manual trans.
This is though an Auto, which would have considerably higher drivetrain loss than my car. What does your "Math" say this car should be making?
Again, your examples have no control, which makes them pointless. They also lack TONS of information to guess at something like HP. Use math to prove your point. Not some random dudes dyno numbers from a different engine.
Was this a 100% bone stock LY6? Is it that hard to divide the stock CHP by 14.7?
I’m guessing that was George C’s build? Which was not “bone stock”. He ran an aftermarket Cam, Intake manifold, Throttle body, exhaust manifolds etc… Chances are he made over 400hp NA.
If you read his “Build” , the same setup dyno’d 960/986 on a mustang dyno. VS his 1053 on a dynojet dyno. Why do you think that is?
Also don’t forget to factor in all the variables below when comparing your dyno reading to someone elses!
Who’s dyno?
Who calibrated it?
What did they calibrate it to/with?
What kind of dyno?
What kind of tire?
What gear ratio?
What temperature (at the manifold none of this room ambient temp BS with turbo cars)
What humidity?
What altitude?
What correction factor?
These variables and a hundred others will all effect your final “WHP” numbers. This is why they aren’t used to determine actual HP. They are a tuning tool.
Who’s dyno?
Who calibrated it?
What did they calibrate it to/with?
What kind of dyno?
What kind of tire?
What gear ratio?
What temperature (at the manifold none of this room ambient temp BS with turbo cars)
What humidity?
What altitude?
What correction factor?
These variables and a hundred others will all effect your final “WHP” numbers. This is why they aren’t used to determine actual HP. They are a tuning tool.
May as well make this a sticky or post it in EVERY dyno thread so you can **** on them also.
Over educated mathematician. He made what he made because he didnt give a ****! slap 2 67mm's on there at 80lbs/min each and its pretty easy to start making power
Truth. I just turned it up until I ran out of fuel!
385? The 6.0 V8 out of the 07 Silverado made 367hp. And how can you assume the HP the motor makes NA when a good turbo cam makes much, much less power than any NA cam, and it has 2 huge restrictions immediately off the head? Your assumptions are as ridiculous as your mythical calculation.
Also, this car trapped 164mph. Using the HP calcuator most people use
385? The 6.0 V8 out of the 07 Silverado made 367hp. And how can you assume the HP the motor makes NA when a good turbo cam makes much, much less power than any NA cam, and it has 2 huge restrictions immediately off the head? Your assumptions are as ridiculous as your mythical calculation.
Also, this car trapped 164mph. Using the HP calcuator most people use
Bringing up more BS dyno numbers so you feel better about your inflated numbers doesn't make them anymore correct. Please bring math of any kind to this thread because you can't obviously can't grasp 4th grade arithmetic.
The 385 number was copy and pasted directly from www.gmpowertrain.com for an LY6 engine.
Your cam theory is also wrong... There is no such thing as a "turbo" or "NA" cam. In an ideal "race turbo" situation with 1:1 or better drive ratios the cam that makes the most power NA will make the most boosted as well.
Are you honestly trying to tell me the isky cam used in George C's build won't make anymore more power than the factory LY6 cam "NA"? You have to compare "like setups". Noone else is running a bone stock LS1 on your dyno. So comparing your setup to ANYTHING else is pointless.
As you admit, you put it on the rollers and run it till your out of fuel. You don't have a clue why it works as it does. Which is also why you don't understand your numbers are incorrect. It won't stop you from having just as much fun as someone that understands it.
Last edited by Forcefed86; 05-04-2015 at 07:02 PM.
Over educated mathematician. He made what he made because he didnt give a ****! slap 2 67mm's on there at 80lbs/min each and its pretty easy to start making power
Bringing up more BS dyno numbers so you feel better about your inflated numbers doesn't make them anymore correct. Please bring math of any kind to this thread because you can't obviously can't grasp 4th grade arithmetic.
So, you saying a car they Dyno’d N/A, the SAME DAY it dyno’s with boost, is BS??
I just want to make this crystal.
What in your opinion BS about this? (Link from above)
For a manual to trap anywhere near what it's dyno sheet says it better damn well be a good pass and no crap shifting etc. To say it will still trap the same is completely wrong. Time spent off throttle and lack of load in lower gears will play a huge factor in how much average power this car would put down going down the track..
Logic? LOL. Leave that **** at home!! The car should cut 1.1 60's and go 8's on a stock rear end, didn't you know?
that na whp is deff scewed by the fact the turbo is there BUT still max that thing would make n/a is prob 350. The math is NOT as simple as some think. I personally have seen more then 100% power increase na vs FI on the same car, same setup, same dyno and under 15psi.
People dont realize that your NA vs FI is based on MANY factors not just math. Maybe your N/A numbers were low because of a poorly setup exhaust, intake, opened up rings ETC ETC. But you slap a nice billet turbo and proper exhaust manifolds, run no filter etc etc and then POW 100% more power and under 14.7 psi. Its not magic, its not impossible! I used to run a dyno for almost 10 years. I have seen MANY MANY cars go from na to FI and make over 100% without digging into the motor and under 15psi. Same dyno, same correction factors, damn near identicle temps, some even SAME DAY.
This thread is full of win. Manuals not trapping. Laws of physics being broken. I'm just honored to be posting in a thread about an engine that brings new meaning to the term "Factory Freak". Talk about being touched by the hand of god. Please let the debate continue
If I had a built 8.8 or 9 inch with the proper gearing and could 330' the car worth a **** I would not be concerned.
But, would you expect your car to go 8.7@163 with a stock NA (yes, my Tii has an NA LSD in it) with a 4.10 Gear ratio? I mean, your not a dumb guy. You expect me to front half with that? Would you?
05-04-2015, 03:06 PM
