From 5thgen.org:

http://www.5thgen.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12930

 

Just shows the difference in dynos, cars and conditions. These numbers would seem a bit high especially with so few miles on the clock. But great for a debate none the less.

 

This was a dynojet and the other was a Mustang Dyno.

 

what was it on the mustang dyno again?

 

dyno jet is a little off.normally they are higher than mustang dynos . mustang dynos are a bit more accurate on the hp numbers.

 

Interesting. I browsed through be didn't see it....did they say what correction factor they used? IE....STD or SAE?

 

I have become very cynical about dynos and dyno-racing. So the drivetrain only loses 40HP on the 5th Gen? If so that is quite a bit of engineering.

Reminds me of the LS3 Corvettes that are dynoing "400RWHP" stock.

 

That's all the 4th gens and GTO's lost.

 

Who measured it? How did they measure it? What equipment was used?

 

Not completely true, my GTO lost 67 RWHP, it put down 282.7 RWHP stock, that was through an A4.

 

Yea I definitely smell some dyno racing starting. There is too much hype for the Camaro not to be involved in the same game that the LS3 C6 and G8 GXP already have been.

 

https://www.camaroz28.com/forums/sho...st+Camaro+dyno

364 RWHP 371 RWT

 

Yeah but with a manual, like this SS, they had the same loss.

 

Maybe I have never had it explained properly but I just don't buy correction factors for dynos. Take this for example if the power applied to the instrument was 384 RWHP then why do we need a calculation to reduce it? Was the dyno fooled? If so, why are dynos so dumb?

On a different note why do the two dynos(Mustang and Dynojet) have 2 different numbers all the time? If the numbers are so all over the place how can we be sure of any number at all? Are engine dynos as messed up as the wheel dynos?

 

that sucks...what was wrong with it?. I have a hard time believing that my car did more with just catback and CAI