GTO with a sticker on the back 475 BHP
01-26-2007, 10:13 PM
#1
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Houston Texas
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTO with a sticker on the back 475 BHP GTO with a sticker on the back 475 BHP . There is a guy at work that has one it is a 6.0 because of the hood but anyone ever heard of this sticker that says 475 bhp on the back of his car? Is this guy posing to have a special edition GTO or do they come like this from the manufacturer. Just curious.
01-26-2007, 11:56 PM
#3
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Houston Texas
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LFSADRG
No such thing. He probably got the sticker in the ricer aisle at Pep Boys.
SLP has the 455 and 421 Bobcat setup but it is aftermarket, of course.
SLP has the 455 and 421 Bobcat setup but it is aftermarket, of course.
LOL ok justmaking sure. I thought that maybe there was a special edition or something I might want to buy.
01-27-2007, 12:10 AM
#4
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: worcester,ma
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no he could have possibly had something installed at some shop and they put that on for him. I saw a guy at the track with calloway 500 on his gto, asked him about it and it turns out calloway installed a magnacharger exhaust and intake.
01-27-2007, 09:54 AM
#5
Banned
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF he's not a ricer, then I bet he's done mods and has guesstimated the BHP from his RWHP and got a custom decal. I'll tell most people that I have 464HP cause most people out there don't realize what RWHP is......
I was thinking of doing the "464 HP" on my banshee hood scoops, but I don't know if thats my engine HP for sure (used 13% as the power loss #s) and then when I start adding more mods, I'd have to change it again.
I was thinking of doing the "464 HP" on my banshee hood scoops, but I don't know if thats my engine HP for sure (used 13% as the power loss #s) and then when I start adding more mods, I'd have to change it again.
01-27-2007, 01:36 PM
#6
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Houston Texas
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gotzaGTO
IF he's not a ricer, then I bet he's done mods and has guesstimated the BHP from his RWHP and got a custom decal. I'll tell most people that I have 464HP cause most people out there don't realize what RWHP is......
I was thinking of doing the "464 HP" on my banshee hood scoops, but I don't know if thats my engine HP for sure (used 13% as the power loss #s) and then when I start adding more mods, I'd have to change it again.
I was thinking of doing the "464 HP" on my banshee hood scoops, but I don't know if thats my engine HP for sure (used 13% as the power loss #s) and then when I start adding more mods, I'd have to change it again.
Trending Topics
01-27-2007, 02:44 PM
#8
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gotzaGTO
IF he's not a ricer, then I bet he's done mods and has guesstimated the BHP from his RWHP and got a custom decal. I'll tell most people that I have 464HP cause most people out there don't realize what RWHP is......
I was thinking of doing the "464 HP" on my banshee hood scoops, but I don't know if thats my engine HP for sure (used 13% as the power loss #s) and then when I start adding more mods, I'd have to change it again.
I was thinking of doing the "464 HP" on my banshee hood scoops, but I don't know if thats my engine HP for sure (used 13% as the power loss #s) and then when I start adding more mods, I'd have to change it again.
honestly w/ the IRS, it's probably higher. more like 18%.
01-27-2007, 04:07 PM
#9
Banned
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DeepBlueZ
honestly w/ the IRS, it's probably higher. more like 18%.
01-27-2007, 04:22 PM
#10
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gotzaGTO
I've seen more GTOs lose 18% like you said, but there have been a few as low as 13%, so I use that % so I can safely say thats the power I have.
Well comparing my stock chassis dyno number to the 400 SAE-certed CRANK horsepower I'm supposed to have, I came up w/ right around 17%.
W/ the same correction factor, 409 RWHP should be approximately 492 crank horsepower.
I'm sure you're probably right around there too.
01-28-2007, 12:52 PM
#12
On The Tree
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Wallkill, NY
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe drivetrain loss is a straight percentage - your drivetrain doesn't suffer additional loss just because you make more power, well maybe a little due to increased friction, but not enough to make it linear.
When you make more power the loss may increase slightly since you are increasing friction by forcing the components together harder, but majority of the loss is static.
If I was making 200bhp in my GTO and had a 15% loss to make 170whp and then increased it to 450bhp, I can't imagine the drivetrain would magically suck up an additional 37 hp or so to make a 67.5 hp loss.
When you make more power the loss may increase slightly since you are increasing friction by forcing the components together harder, but majority of the loss is static.
If I was making 200bhp in my GTO and had a 15% loss to make 170whp and then increased it to 450bhp, I can't imagine the drivetrain would magically suck up an additional 37 hp or so to make a 67.5 hp loss.
01-28-2007, 01:56 PM
#13
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NVigR8
I don't believe drivetrain loss is a straight percentage - your drivetrain doesn't suffer additional loss just because you make more power, well maybe a little due to increased friction, but not enough to make it linear.
When you make more power the loss may increase slightly since you are increasing friction by forcing the components together harder, but majority of the loss is static.
If I was making 200bhp in my GTO and had a 15% loss to make 170whp and then increased it to 450bhp, I can't imagine the drivetrain would magically suck up an additional 37 hp or so to make a 67.5 hp loss.
When you make more power the loss may increase slightly since you are increasing friction by forcing the components together harder, but majority of the loss is static.
If I was making 200bhp in my GTO and had a 15% loss to make 170whp and then increased it to 450bhp, I can't imagine the drivetrain would magically suck up an additional 37 hp or so to make a 67.5 hp loss.
This has been a long time debate, but nobody's ever been able to show conclusively one way or the other.
It definitely seems logical that the drivetrain would eat up a SET amont of power rather than a percentage. I just don't know though.
01-30-2007, 03:56 PM
#16
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LEO
18% if it's an automatic. 12-13% if it's a 6 speed.
12-13% if it's a 6 speed.ehh i dunno about that...
using stock crank hp numbers, it's more like 16-18% with a 6-speed and 20% for an automatic.
01-30-2007, 05:27 PM
#17
TECH Addict
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: HOU - yeah, you know the rest.
Posts: 2,959
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by DeepBlueZ
ehh i dunno about that...
using stock crank hp numbers, it's more like 16-18% with a 6-speed and 20% for an automatic.
using stock crank hp numbers, it's more like 16-18% with a 6-speed and 20% for an automatic.
01-30-2007, 08:17 PM
#18
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LEO
Yeah, lots of people would like to think that, so they can brag to their friends about their hp numbers.
seems to make sense to me......
i added 74 RWHP from stock w/ my mods, that's around 80-90 REAL horsepower at the flywheel, which puts it right where my calc was w/ 18% (492).
If I used 12%, i'd get 464 flywheel HP.
seeing as 74 is a real quantitative gain at the wheels and 74 > 64, even with a ZERO percent drivetrain loss, that would mean I didn't have 400 flywheel hp to begin with.
I'm personally not bragging about anything. flywheel hp numbers don't mean anything. I'm just going with the numbers that make mathematical sense.
01-31-2007, 11:47 AM
#19
TECH Addict
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: HOU - yeah, you know the rest.
Posts: 2,959
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I can settle this debate, go run your car at the track and let me know what your mph and race weight is along with the DA @ the track that day. BTW, try dynoing the car with the tires you will be running and at the same psi. If had to take a guess, I'd say your car would run around 114 mph, if your race weight was about 3,900 lbs. and you made corrected the run to 0 DA. If I'm wrong you'll be running closer to 117-118 mph. It's just simple math.
01-31-2007, 03:37 PM
#20
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LEO
I can settle this debate, go run your car at the track and let me know what your mph and race weight is along with the DA @ the track that day. BTW, try dynoing the car with the tires you will be running and at the same psi. If had to take a guess, I'd say your car would run around 114 mph, if your race weight was about 3,900 lbs. and you made corrected the run to 0 DA. If I'm wrong you'll be running closer to 117-118 mph. It's just simple math.
my raceweight is around 3750 give or take 10 pounds....