I'd like to see if this particular car has been run down the 1/4 mile and if so what was the trap speed. That will answer far more to me than a dyno run.

 

I am waiting for that 99 !!

 

More clearly stated, yes.

 

This test was done on a dynojet (the portable one, at that).

The other dyno they have is a mustang dyno; BUT its in ground.

What I'd like to know was how many miles on that car.

 

I'd like to know a lot of things about the dyno pass. I believe it was stated on another forum that the car had 1k miles.

Unless you have a laptop or computer logged into the VCM, a dyno result is not that useful.

IAT is a dictator when it comes to LS motor calibrations. Without IAT, AFR, and knock retard readings a dyno pass result is a joke.

You can get a result, but you have no idea if that's what the vehicle is capable of. I guess the best way I can put it is to say that you have to assure all that of the optimum factors are known in order to rely on a result shown.

 

Have said it a million times....dyno results are neat, interesting, and can be used as a guide for how well a car performs, but....

1) The dyno is a tuning tool, first and foremost.

2) Dyno's don't go down the track.

 

I know some race teams that would love to get purse money or season titles based on dyno numbers.

We could forget all about going to the wind tunnel, 4, 7, or 8 post shaker rigs, and driver talent.

 

I'm going to have to disagree... because his descriptions for brake and inertial dynos are the same.

Inertial dynos measure power.
Brake dynos measure torque.

Both then use their measurement and RPM to calculate the other figure.

 

HP = Tq * rpm / 5252
TQ = HP / rpm * 5252

Pretty easy stuff....even for me!

 

OK...

What I believe about brake and roller dynos is:

One is a great tool if you have the engine out of the car. It's much easier to tweak exhaust, cams, etc. as they are much easier accessed.

One is easier if the engine is in the vehicle and accounting for the drivetrain losses.

Either way, they are tools and not destinations.

I'm big on using the exact same dyno for tuning if the device is regularly calibrated correctly and the operator is diligent to account for all the variables and correct or account for the variables.

I have hardly ever responded to dyno threads in the past, and I doubt I will in the future.

WHY?

Because there is usually very little info about all the parameters which should have been captured and should be shared.

Maybe sharing a little story might illustrate my point.

About three years ago circumstances allow me to have one of the senior engineers who writes the engine calibrations for V-8's review my Z06. I figured having the guy who tuned the car originally, was a good guy to have in the passenger seat.

He logged on to my car with "THE" computer program which showed ALL the pages and tables. Our chase car was the next model year Corvette which was doing high heat/humidity testing.

The purpose of all this was not that I get a perk at the expense of the stockholder. The purpose was to look at possible improvements that would benefit customers, and thus, GM.

The program used has the capability to work as a dyno on the fly. Really remarkable stuff! We could tune on the fly. We could not leave an altered tune in the VCM and comply with the government.

Here's the part that matters...

I was told and saw with my own eyes what temps and sensor readings would do the horsepower on tap. The situations that result in dialing out power are there for 2 damn good reasons. Emissions and longevity. If you test under certain sensor temp conditions, the HORSEPOWER SEEN WILL BE LOWER.

There are safeguards in the vehicle tune that account for fuel quality. For the sake of discussion; a good fuel and bad fuel table. If you are in the "bad" fuel table, the HORSEPOWER SEEN IS GOING TO BE LOWER.

The safeguards are NOT A BAD THING. They are important to be aware of if you are trying to determine power potential.

Bobs point is monumental in the sense that the et's and trap speeds being seen do not suggest that the Camaro is short on thrust.

There's a risk that folks will view any comments from a GM employed person about a GM vehicle are based in a defensive or apologetic tone.

I'll certainly defend GM's products, but it's an honest defense based on belief and facts.

As for being apologetic? The Camaro is a great sports car that needs no apologies.

I want to be sure people don't deprive themselves of a great vehicle experience due to incomplete understanding.

Otherwise I'd avoid this kind of thread like the plague.

 

I was able to find more info about this car and the dyno run. It's a GM fleet vehicle 6M LS3 SS with under 1000 miles when the dyno run was done. For comparison per the owner of Livernois;
Stock LS2 Vettes put down about 340rwhp,
LS3 Vettes make about 370rwhp.
Stock LS7 Z06 and GT500 have put down about 440rwhp.
Chrysler LX cars with the 5.7L Hemi make about 270-280 rwhp and the 6.1L SRT8's put down 365-370rwhp.
Livernois says their DynoJet is on the more conservative side and that it was calibrated twice in the past year.

See a video of a G8 GXP with 19 miles on the odo that put down 351hp/361tq on the same dyno the Camaro was on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXhWP...e=channel_page

Seems to me that per this dyno/shop the Camaro SS is putting down it's advertised power and well in line with the competitors.

 

the car only had 1000 miles on it too. it need a little more of a break in period to get a few more hp.

 

Conservative dyno. Thanks for the info.

As I said, dyno results are more useful when all of the parameters are known.

I'd still like to see the IAT temps, AFR, fuel table, and knock retard. Likely they weren't read, which is no biggie if you are just strapping one down and letting it eat for jollies.