Re: Gross Horsepower LT-5
 

That's correct. Actually, that session was three passes on the Dynojet at K&N Engineering near the end of the period when the car was a "project vehicle" for "Vette Magazine." It was two runs at 410 and one at 413. There were also a few in the high 400s, but that was with a different calibration.

Well, uh...(choke)...:-D

I don't know how this thread ended up being a wee-wee length contest. I thought we were talking about how GM has rated engines, the differences between the old "gross" power rating system and the current "SAE net" power rating system and the ins-and-outs of comparing power output using dynos.

But...I will conceded, Paul, that your weenie is bigger.

Likely you'd wipe my sorry butt all over the track seeing as you have headers, shorter gears, more power to the ground and significant drag racing talent revered by most here on the ZR1 Net Forum.:notworthy

Re: Gross Horsepower LT-5
 

Well put.

Re: Gross Horsepower LT-5
 

I think this pretty much sums up this discussion, there is no one right answer as Dom ends up arguing with himself. :handshak:

Re: Gross Horsepower LT-5
 

Yeah, I was trying to figure that out. Thought it was just me...

Re: Gross Horsepower LT-5
 

Ins-and-outs of comparing power output via dynos...WAS exactly my point!

Engine output and how it is measured has been a delema for real engineers for some time, hence references to the evolvement of various SAE standards for measurement, and their revisions over time. And, I was agreeing (somewhat, perhaps) with you with regard to the ambeguity ("grain of salt", you said) that results between direct vs. indirect measurements.

You misunderstood my piont; no dick-measuring at all. Take "yours and mine" out of the discussion and say A = 504 net chp via 18% correction between the tire and the flywheel, and B = 508 net chp via 15%. That amounts to a 1% difference in net chp - well within the margin of error to the point of being essentially the same.

However, measured at the tire, B = 4% more than A. We can agrue the differnces between dynos too, but all things being equal, which horse are you going to bet on in a race? Again...reinforcing your agruement regarding (essentially) the pitfalls of extrapolating measurements via indirect methods, and my point that measurements at the tire are much more indicative of motor output, but terminal velocity resulting from WOT accelleration testing is probably superior to anything else we have to determine real performance, i.e., where rubber meets the road...maybe.:o

Interesting discovery... In boning up on SAE standards re this topic, I ran across "taxible horsepower". Essentially a British standard where a horsepower tax was levied on manufactures where the number of cylinders and bore diameter were the key ingredients in the calculation. As result, Jaguar (and others) motors in the 50s were built with fewer cylinders and strokes significantly longer than bore diameter. Eventially, the standard was relaxed in order to compete effectively with other world manufactures that were trending toward over-square bore/stroke via bore diameter. Another example of govenment and unintended consequences. Makes ya wonder what sports cars would be like w/o any restrictions, huh? Supercharged V12s or V16s maybe?

Anyway...I agree w/ others that this topic has probably been beat to death...long ago.

P.

P.

Re: Gross Horsepower LT-5
 

Beaten like a drumb.:blahblah:

You can lead a horse to water..............but if the horse thinks he knows everything there is to know about water.....................

Re: Gross Horsepower LT-5
 

Definitely time to close this one.
But that Hib quote would be a nice addition to Paul's signature :jawdrop:

Re: Gross Horsepower LT-5
 

This discussion has run its course. The tread is now closed.

Jim