Fourtitude.com - Looks Like the C8 Corvette Press Cars Were Ringers . . . (MT Content)
Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    Fourtitude.com


    Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
    Results 76 to 100 of 127
    1. Member Jimmy Russells's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 4th, 2007
      Location
      Vancouver
      Posts
      16,141
      Cars
      RS3, JKU
      10-22-2019 05:11 PM #76
      Quote Originally Posted by WhatBlueVW View Post
      Chevy also hasn't had a history of dyno numbers being off from the published (by GM) numbers, unlike say Ferrari, or Hyundai, or etc., etc.

      Generally, people out in the real world have been able to replicate the numbers the magazines get with their Corvettes and Camaros too.

      What about ringers in terms of tires and suspension, btw... After all the nurburgring controversy, I have a hard time not believing some of that is snuck in here and there.

      If you watch this video really closely you can see the C8 on the dyno has cut slicks

    2. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    3. Member
      Join Date
      Feb 27th, 2016
      Posts
      369
      Cars
      2016 GSW TSI, AT, Comfortline, H&R street performance coil-overs
      10-22-2019 05:44 PM #77
      Can you guys read the RPM that the max HP and torque were made at on the MT tests? The print is too small for me. I'm wondering if it's something as simple as the old L88 trick, where they published 430HP (picked the HP they wanted and then worked backwards and rated it at that specific RPM) was at say 5000RPM, but really it could make 560HP at 6500...that way they weren't really lying they were just rating at different RPM.

    4. Senior Member AZGolf's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 6th, 2000
      Location
      Phoenix area
      Posts
      33,579
      10-22-2019 06:08 PM #78
      The C7 Z51 with manual transmission trapped 118mph in the 2014 review I pulled up. That's with maybe 150 pounds less weight, but also no launch control and much taller gearing from the slower-shifting manual transmission. I suspect it could have done 120mph with all of the aforementioned equipment. To me, it's not a stretch to see the C8 going 3 mph faster with 495hp and all the mechanical advantages it has. Again: if the C8 is 150hp underrated then apparently the 992 911 S is also since it traps the same speed on even less power. I agree with Sporin that this was likely a dyno problem.

    5. Member SchnellFowVay's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 20th, 2001
      Location
      Las Vegas, NV
      Posts
      14,848
      Cars
      '19 MDX, '17 S3, '08 987.1 S
      10-22-2019 07:07 PM #79
      Quote Originally Posted by Dirtmvr View Post
      Can you guys read the RPM that the max HP and torque were made at on the MT tests? The print is too small for me. I'm wondering if it's something as simple as the old L88 trick, where they published 430HP (picked the HP they wanted and then worked backwards and rated it at that specific RPM) was at say 5000RPM, but really it could make 560HP at 6500...that way they weren't really lying they were just rating at different RPM.
      Again, that's why we are focusing on torque. Torque is not a function of RPMs. There are exactly two realistic possibilities here: (1) the dyno is wrong; or (2) the engine is more than 6.2L.

      Given all of the info aggregated in this thread, I am more convinced that this was dyno user error.
      Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk
      this is due to your inexperience with performance driving . . . you really do have to take a car to a performance driving event, track day, autocross, ice race etc to get a feel for how a car actually performs. and you have to have the knowledge and skill to be able to manipulate the car in such a way as to get it and keep it at the edge.

    6. Geriatric Member BRealistic's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 16th, 2005
      Location
      East-10EC
      Posts
      79,551
      Cars
      '18 RCSB EB F150
      10-22-2019 07:36 PM #80
      Quote Originally Posted by SchnellFowVay View Post
      Certainly some have in recent times. Ferrari, who did it with the 360 Modena, probably also did it with the 458. Though the engine was rated at 570hp, when Motortrend dynoed the press car, it put down ~495whp.

      However, it is well known in the Ferrari community that customer cars only produce 440-450whp, and most are somewhat overrated on power. This type of power disparity in an N/A engine is very hard to produce by simply advancing timing on pump gas or installing a hotter cam (too hot of a cam will create drivability issues). That said, if the engine is bored out and/or slightly stroked in the press car, you can generate significant power improvements that will be virtually undetectable to the test driver/reviewer.

      Now that Ferrari has turbo engines, it can just screw with the boost levels like all of the German car companies do.
      Yep.
      Ferrari seems to be the only manufacturer that's fully allowed to bring multiple one test ringers- because everybody wants access to them and they know complaining would cause a problem.

      Have to give credit to Chris Harris for blowing the whistle on that BS.
      Almost makes up for his Miata hate while openly loving worse cars because "character".

      Originally Posted by Chris Harris
      I told the blokes here at Jalopnik I was pissed at Ferrari and wanted to tell a few people. They said I could do it here. Stay with me, this might take a while.

      I think it started in 2007 when I heard that Ferrari wanted to know which test track we were going to use for Autocar's 599 GTB road test, but in reality the rot had set in many years earlier. Why would it want to know that? "Because," said the man from the Autocar office, "The factory now has to send a test team to the circuit we chose so that they can optimize the car to get the best performance from it." They duly went to the track, tested for a day, crashed the car, went back to the factory to mend the car, returned, tested and then invited us to drive this "standard" 599. They must have been having a laugh.

      Sad to say it, but the ecstasy of driving a new Ferrari is now almost always eradicated by the pain of dealing with the organization. Why am I bothering to tell you this? Because I'm pissed with the whole thing now. It's gotten out of control; to the point that it will soon be pointless believing anything you read about its cars through the usual channels, because the only way you get access is playing by its rules.

      Like anyone with half a brain, I've been willing to cut Ferrari some slack because it is, well, Ferrari –- the most famous fast car brand of all and the maker of cars that everyone wants to know about. Bang out a video of yourself drifting a new Jag XKR on YouTube and 17 people watch it; do the same in a 430 Scuderia and the audience is 500,000 strong. As a journalist, those numbers make you willing to accommodate truck-loads of bull****, but I've had enough now. I couldn't care if I never drive a new Ferrari again, if it means I never have to deal with the insane communication machine and continue lying about the lengths to which Ferrari will bend any rule to get what it wants. Which is just as well, because I don't think I'm going to be invited back to Maranello any time soon. Shame, the food's bloody marvelous.

      How bad has it been? I honestly don't know where to start. Perhaps the 360 Modena press car that was two seconds faster to 100mph than the customer car we also tested. You allow some leeway for "factory fresh" machines, but this thing was ludicrously quick and sounded more like Schumacher's weekend wheels than a street car. Ferrari will never admit that its press cars are tuned, but has the gall to turn up at any of the big European magazines' end-of-year-shindig-tests with two cars. One for straight line work, the other for handling exercises. Because that's what happens when you buy a 458: they deliver two for just those eventualities. The whole thing stinks. In any other industry it wouldn't be allowed to happen. It's dishonest, but all the mags take it between the cheeks because they're too scared of not being invited to drive the next new Ferrari.

      Remember the awesome 430 Scuderia? What a car that was, and still is. One English magazine went along with all the cheating-bull**** because the cars did seem to be representative of what a customer might get to drive, but then during the dyno session, the "standard" tires stuck themselves to the rollers.

      And this is the nub: how ****ing paranoid do you have to be to put even stickier rubber on a Scuderia? It's like John Holmes having an extra two inches grafted onto his dick. I mean it's not as if, according to your own communication, you're not a clear market leader and maker of the best sports cars in the world now, is it?

      What Ferrari plainly cannot see is that its strategy to win every test at any cost is completely counter-productive. First, it completely undermines the amazing work of its own engineers. What does it say about a 458 if the only way its maker is willing to loan it to a magazine is if a laptop can be plugged in after every journey and a dedicated team needs to spend several days at the chosen test track to set-up the car? It says they're completely nuts –- behavior that looks even worse when rival brands just hand over their car with nothing more than a polite suggestion that you should avoid crashing it too heavily, and then return a week later.

      Point two: the internet is good for three things: free porn, Jalopnik and spreading information. Fifteen years ago, if your 355 wasn't as fast as the maker claimed you could give the supplying dealer a headache, whine at the local owners club and not much besides. Nowadays you spray your message around the globe and every bugger knows about it in minutes. So, when we used an owner's 430 Scud because Ferrari wouldn't lend us the test car, it was obliterated in a straight line by a GT2 and a Lambo LP 560-4, despite all the "official" road test figures suggesting it was faster than Halley's Comet. The forums went nuts and some Scud owners rightly felt they hadn't been delivered the car they'd read about in all the buff books. Talk about karma slapping you in the face.

      It's the level of control that's so profoundly irritating and I think damaging to the brand. Once you know that it takes a full support crew and two 458s to supply those amazing stats, it then takes the shine off the car. The simple message from Ferrari is that unless you play exactly by the laws they lay down, you're off the list.

      What are those laws? Apart from the laughable track test stuff, as a journalist you are expressly forbidden from driving any current Ferrari road car without permission from the factory. So if I want to drive my mate's 458 tomorrow, I have to ask the factory. Will it allow me to drive the car? No: because it is of "unknown provenance," i.e. not tuned. I'm almost tempted to buy a 458, just for the joy of phoning Maranello every morning and asking if its OK if I take my kid to school.

      Where I've personally run into trouble is by using owners' cars for comparison tests. Ferrari absolutely hates this; even if you say unremittingly nice things about its cars, it goes ape ****. But you want to see a 458 against a GT3 RS so I'm going to deliver that story and that video. Likewise the 599 GTO and the GT2 RS. Ferrari honestly believes it can control every aspect of the media — it has actively intervened several times when I've asked to borrow owners' cars.

      The control freakery is getting worse: for the FF launch in March journalists have to say which outlets they are writing it for and those have to be approved by Maranello. Honestly, we're perilously close to having the words and verdicts vetted by the Ferrari press office before they're released, which of course has always been the way in some markets.

      Should I give a **** about this stuff? Probably not. It's not like it's a life-and-death situation; supercars are pretty unserious tackle. But the best thing about car nuts is that they let you drive their cars, and Ferrari has absolutely no chance stopping people like me driving what they want to drive. Of course their attempts to stop me makes it an even better sport and merely hardens my resolve, but the sad thing is its cars are so good it doesn't need all this ****e. I'll repeat that for the benefit of any vestige of a chance I might have of ever driving a Ferrari press car ever again (which is virtually none). "Its cars are so good it doesn't need this ****e."

      None of this will make any difference to Ferrari. I'm just an irrelevant Limey who doesn't really matter. But I've had enough of concealing what goes on, to the point that I no longer want to be a Ferrari owner, a de-facto member of its bull****-control-edifice. I sold my 575 before Christmas. As pathetic protests go, you have to agree it's high quality.

      Jesus, this is now sounding like a properly depressing rant. I'll leave it there. Just remember all this stuff then next time you read a magazine group test with a prancing stallion in it.
      Oh, and I am confused on the "it makes too much torque" reasoning.
      People having been building LS engines for pump gas for years that make that much power with under 7 liters.
      Maybe GM tuned them special (timing and emissions?), but the "must be bored for bigger displacement" thing is a red herring imo.
      Last edited by BRealistic; 10-22-2019 at 07:41 PM.

    7. Member SchnellFowVay's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 20th, 2001
      Location
      Las Vegas, NV
      Posts
      14,848
      Cars
      '19 MDX, '17 S3, '08 987.1 S
      10-22-2019 07:46 PM #81
      Quote Originally Posted by BRealistic View Post
      Yep.
      [B]Ferrari seems to be the only
      Oh, and I am confused on the "it makes too much torque" reasoning.
      Oh, that part is easy. It is nearly impossible for any naturally aspirated engine on pump gas to make more than 85 lb-ft of torque per liter regardless of any other variable. And no pushrod V8 is making anywhere near 85 lb-ft per liter (a pushrod V8 has more mechanical moving parts, and is therefore inherently less efficient than a DOHC engine).

      Therefore, it is physically impossible for a 6.2L n/a V8 to dyno the torque numbers reflected in the motortrend article. Absolutely impossible on pump gas with no forced induction.

      So there are exactly two possibilities: (1) dyno error; or (2) engine has more than 6.2L.

      While I was originally leaning more toward option #2, some of the more intelligent analysis in here has me leaning more toward #1.
      Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk
      this is due to your inexperience with performance driving . . . you really do have to take a car to a performance driving event, track day, autocross, ice race etc to get a feel for how a car actually performs. and you have to have the knowledge and skill to be able to manipulate the car in such a way as to get it and keep it at the edge.

    8. Member Jimmy Russells's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 4th, 2007
      Location
      Vancouver
      Posts
      16,141
      Cars
      RS3, JKU
      10-22-2019 07:52 PM #82
      Quote Originally Posted by SchnellFowVay View Post
      (a pushrod V8 has more mechanical moving parts
      This kind of got me thinking, because I don't know it's actually true. DOHC has four cams instead of one, and twice as many valves. Obviously, no pushrods, and depending on the DOHC setup you could have lifters and/or rockers, or even neither. Both setups have valve springs obviously. DOHC also has like ten feet worth of timing chains instead of maybe 18".

    9. Member SchnellFowVay's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 20th, 2001
      Location
      Las Vegas, NV
      Posts
      14,848
      Cars
      '19 MDX, '17 S3, '08 987.1 S
      10-22-2019 07:58 PM #83
      Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Russells View Post
      This kind of got me thinking, because I don't know it's actually true. DOHC has four cams instead of one, and twice as many valves. Obviously, no pushrods, and depending on the DOHC setup you could have lifters and/or rockers, or even neither. Both setups have valve springs obviously. DOHC also has like ten feet worth of timing chains instead of maybe 18".
      You may be right. But if you just look at the rate lb-ft/liter of even modern pushrod V8's, they tend to pale in comparison to cars like the Porsche GT3, Ferrari 458, Ford Voodoo V8 in the GT350, etc.

      Whatever the reason, without boost, pushrod V8s don't seem to have the torque density of overhead cam engines. The difference is small, but it's definitely there.
      Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk
      this is due to your inexperience with performance driving . . . you really do have to take a car to a performance driving event, track day, autocross, ice race etc to get a feel for how a car actually performs. and you have to have the knowledge and skill to be able to manipulate the car in such a way as to get it and keep it at the edge.

    10. 10-22-2019 08:10 PM #84
      How was reliability been on these test cars, I heard a rumor there were some issues with cooling

    11. 10-22-2019 09:22 PM #85
      Quote Originally Posted by SchnellFowVay View Post
      Oh, that part is easy. It is nearly impossible for any naturally aspirated engine on pump gas to make more than 85 lb-ft of torque per liter regardless of any other variable. And no pushrod V8 is making anywhere near 85 lb-ft per liter (a pushrod V8 has more mechanical moving parts, and is therefore inherently less efficient than a DOHC engine).


      Sure about that?

      Two quick examples, on pump gas for you. Two different flavors too:


      Budget destroked LQ4 at around 84.25 lb-ft per liter (skip to around 2:15).




      Stroked LS3 at around 89 lb-ft per liter.



      (98 RON = ~93.5 R+M/2)
      2017 Chevy SS | 1977 Trans Am
      ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

    12. Member SchnellFowVay's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 20th, 2001
      Location
      Las Vegas, NV
      Posts
      14,848
      Cars
      '19 MDX, '17 S3, '08 987.1 S
      10-22-2019 10:58 PM #86
      Quote Originally Posted by Pushrods View Post
      Sure about that?


      (98 RON = ~93.5 R+M/2)
      I obviously meant from the factory with emissions equipment. Obviously removing Cats, increasing compression ratio, advancing timing, hotter cams, etc., can also get higher.

      Even then, though, there is an absolute limit to how much energy pump gas and air at the stoich ratio can produce in an internal combustion engine using current technology.

      EDIT: There are modified Porsche GT3 engines that get north of 95 lb-ft per liter, but those are with emissions equipment removed, timing advanced to ass crack of what 93 octane can handle, and other modifications. I was talking about in an OEM application with my earlier comments.
      Last edited by SchnellFowVay; 10-22-2019 at 11:01 PM.
      Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk
      this is due to your inexperience with performance driving . . . you really do have to take a car to a performance driving event, track day, autocross, ice race etc to get a feel for how a car actually performs. and you have to have the knowledge and skill to be able to manipulate the car in such a way as to get it and keep it at the edge.

    13. Senior Member JustinCSVT's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 3rd, 2004
      Location
      Atlanta, GA
      Posts
      21,503
      10-22-2019 11:00 PM #87
      Quote Originally Posted by BRealistic View Post


      Oh, and I am confused on the "it makes too much torque" reasoning.
      People having been building LS engines for pump gas for years that make that much power with under 7 liters.
      Maybe GM tuned them special (timing and emissions?), but the "must be bored for bigger displacement" thing is a red herring imo.
      Do they sound and idle like stock? No.

    14. Senior Member
      Join Date
      Feb 23rd, 2000
      Location
      Shepherdstown, WV
      Posts
      23,257
      10-22-2019 11:16 PM #88
      Quote Originally Posted by SchnellFowVay View Post

      Even then, though, there is an absolute limit to how much energy pump gas and air at the stoich ratio can produce in an internal combustion engine using current technology.
      .
      Why are you under the impression that peak hp or torque is achieved while running stoichiometric air fuel ratios?

      I agree that there is a limit to what can be done on pump gas, and modern cars do hold stoic longer than they have in the past, but stoic isn't a factor in this as they can run richer at WOT.

    15. 10-23-2019 12:07 AM #89
      Look up "BMEP" = "brake mean effective pressure" and what it means ... and what the plausible range is.

      The "torque per litre of displacement" is related to BMEP but using commonly available units (it's easy to know or measure the displacement, and a dyno test tells you the torque).

      Most normal two-valve-per-cylinder, normally aspirated, 4 stroke gasoline engines with normal emission and noise control equipment, and without exceptional tuning measures, make about 65 - 70 lb.ft of torque per litre of displacement. I am talking about "normal average run of the mill engine" here. That implies BMEP of around 11 - 12 bar. A well tuned 4 valve per cylinder DOHC engine, normally aspirated, 4 stroke running on gasoline, but still with emission and noise control equipment, for example a modern 1000cc supersports motorcycle engine, may make 80-ish lb.ft per litre, around 13 - 13.5 bar.

      What about state-of-the-art? NASCAR is practically certain to be the two-valve pushrod state-of-the-art, Formula 1 (in the non-turbo era) is certain to be the four-valve state-of-the-art. Comparison article: http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine..._cup_to_f1.htm TLR? Both are very close to 15.1 bar BMEP. That, for a normally-aspirated 4-stroke engine running on gasoline, is as good as it will get. This represents 89 lb.ft of torque per litre of displacement.

      It requires exceptionally good tuning to reach that level, and generally a very high BMEP will be reliant upon acoustic tuning of the intake and exhaust systems such that it will only achieve that BMEP over a fairly narrow RPM range - the RPM at which the intake tuning, exhaust tuning, and cam timing all work together. One of the desirable characteristics of a production engine is to have a wide, flat torque curve. A consequence is that the maximum BMEP won't reach the very high extremes.

    16. Member
      Join Date
      Jan 18th, 2018
      Posts
      4,688
      Cars
      '16 TLX SH-AWD- NA is BEST
      10-23-2019 09:28 AM #90
      Quote Originally Posted by The_Real_Stack View Post
      No dog in this fight, but why is it that when BMW/Porsche/etc massively underrate their engines they are “underrated” but when Chevy does it its “fishy” and “a ringer”?
      In the turbocharged realm HP ratings are basically meaningless. This thing is putting down C7 Z06 power and is not far behind in torque. **** just doesn't add up.

      I am a little tickled by how riled up people are about this. "How scandalous!" I doubt the people up in arms about this were in the market for one anyway. It's peculiar but def not worth the OP's level of concern IMO.

    17. Member
      Join Date
      Jan 18th, 2018
      Posts
      4,688
      Cars
      '16 TLX SH-AWD- NA is BEST
      10-23-2019 09:30 AM #91
      Quote Originally Posted by Pushrods View Post
      Sure about that?

      Two quick examples, on pump gas for you. Two different flavors too:


      Budget destroked LQ4 at around 84.25 lb-ft per liter (skip to around 2:15).




      Stroked LS3 at around 89 lb-ft per liter.



      (98 RON = ~93.5 R+M/2)
      YT is blocked here but I'm guessing those engines won't pass the emissions and noise regs a bone stock C8 does.

    18. Member
      Join Date
      Feb 27th, 2016
      Posts
      369
      Cars
      2016 GSW TSI, AT, Comfortline, H&R street performance coil-overs
      10-23-2019 10:15 AM #92
      Aren’t you guys forgetting this engine has variable cam timing? Geez even in 1970 a 454 390HP Corvette engine (relatively mild hydraulic cam) was making 500 LB/ft of torque...so you don’t think it’s possible to have improved 25% over nearly 50 years!?

    19. 10-23-2019 11:10 AM #93
      Quote Originally Posted by Dirtmvr View Post
      Aren’t you guys forgetting this engine has variable cam timing? Geez even in 1970 a 454 390HP Corvette engine (relatively mild hydraulic cam) was making 500 LB/ft of torque...so you don’t think it’s possible to have improved 25% over nearly 50 years!?
      454 ci = 7.4 litres, 500 lb.ft of torque is 67 lb.ft of torque per litre of displacement = 11.5 bar BMEP. This is completely unsurprising for an engine of this type (see my previous post).

      Variable valve timing allows the engine's cam timing to be tweaked to optimise it over a wider RPM range but at any given RPM, it cannot make anything magic happen that couldn't be done with fixed valve timing optimised for that specific RPM. Result ... Peak BMEP is no higher but it may extend over a wider range.

      Certainly there have been improvements over the last 50 years but the underlying physics has not changed.

      For a point of comparison, a modern Chrysler 3.6 Pentastar makes around 260 lb.ft of torque. The BMEP is practically the same as that old Corvette engine (despite DOHC and 4 valves per cylinder and variable valve timing). But ... The improvements made in the last 50 years are that the Pentastar has a very flat torque curve and it makes most of that torque anywhere between 1500 rpm and 5500 rpm, and it does so smoothly and quietly and fuss-free and in compliance with current emission standards, and it will get more than 7 miles per gallon in daily driving.

    20. Member
      Join Date
      Feb 27th, 2016
      Posts
      369
      Cars
      2016 GSW TSI, AT, Comfortline, H&R street performance coil-overs
      10-23-2019 11:24 AM #94
      Quote Originally Posted by GoFaster View Post
      454 ci = 7.4 litres, 500 lb.ft of torque is 67 lb.ft of torque per litre of displacement = 11.5 bar BMEP. This is completely unsurprising for an engine of this type (see my previous post).

      Variable valve timing allows the engine's cam timing to be tweaked to optimise it over a wider RPM range but at any given RPM, it cannot make anything magic happen that couldn't be done with fixed valve timing optimised for that specific RPM. Result ... Peak BMEP is no higher but it may extend over a wider range.

      Certainly there have been improvements over the last 50 years but the underlying physics has not changed.

      For a point of comparison, a modern Chrysler 3.6 Pentastar makes around 260 lb.ft of torque. The BMEP is practically the same as that old Corvette engine (despite DOHC and 4 valves per cylinder and variable valve timing). But ... The improvements made in the last 50 years are that the Pentastar has a very flat torque curve and it makes most of that torque anywhere between 1500 rpm and 5500 rpm, and it does so smoothly and quietly and fuss-free and in compliance with current emission standards, and it will get more than 7 miles per gallon in daily driving.
      Yes I realize all of that...that's why I used the 25% target as 67 x 1.25 ~85lb/ft/L, and the VVT allows a smooth idle in an otherwise monster of an engine as well as the flat torque curve etc. We both know the dyno results are screwed and can't be compared to the SAE numbers, but the apparent results are probably not as far fetched as the OP wants everyone to believe...

    21. Member SchnellFowVay's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 20th, 2001
      Location
      Las Vegas, NV
      Posts
      14,848
      Cars
      '19 MDX, '17 S3, '08 987.1 S
      10-23-2019 01:28 PM #95
      Quote Originally Posted by Dirtmvr View Post
      Yes I realize all of that...that's why I used the 25% target as 67 x 1.25 ~85lb/ft/L, and the VVT allows a smooth idle in an otherwise monster of an engine as well as the flat torque curve etc. We both know the dyno results are screwed and can't be compared to the SAE numbers, but the apparent results are probably not as far fetched as the OP wants everyone to believe...
      First off, since the OP, I have changed my opinion.

      Second off, at best, I was arguing that the engine was bored and stroked to the 7.0L range. That is basically a 12-15% increase over the claimed 6.2L. At no point was I arguing that this thing was bored out to 9.0L or something.
      Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk
      this is due to your inexperience with performance driving . . . you really do have to take a car to a performance driving event, track day, autocross, ice race etc to get a feel for how a car actually performs. and you have to have the knowledge and skill to be able to manipulate the car in such a way as to get it and keep it at the edge.

    22. Senior Member Sporin's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 17th, 1999
      Location
      Vermont, USA
      Posts
      32,197
      Cars
      '94 Miata - '16 RAV4 - '10 Prius
      10-23-2019 02:48 PM #96
      Gotta say, for a thread based completely on speculation, I have learned a lot. For instance, I didn't now know that there was an actual physics limitation to torque (ft-lbs/liter).

      I am the farthest thing from an engineer, so some of it's over my head, but ...


    23. Member H.E. Pennypacker's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 4th, 2010
      Location
      By the Bay, CA
      Posts
      2,840
      Cars
      Personal: 2017 SS, 1997 LS1/T56 V90 Work: 2017 Camry XLE
      10-23-2019 05:18 PM #97


      Me, a 35 year old man, trying his best in this thread.

    24. Planters (fasciitis) peanuts. Dang dogg Sold Over Sticker's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 29th, 2009
      Posts
      16,857
      10-23-2019 05:58 PM #98
      Well part of your problem Mr Pennypacker is that you posted a picture of an inverted helicopter, but that cockpit is obviously from a fixed wing Cessna. Helicopters have cyclics and not yokes.
      Driving While Awesome Podcast. Give it a listen. #TeamAkane. Donate to help a wonderful family kick cancers ass
      Quote Originally Posted by Phillie Phanatic
      SoS - please shoot a message when Brendan & His Retarded Sycophants has another gig. I’ll be there, front row.

    25. Member HI SPEED's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 3rd, 2004
      Location
      Honolulu
      Posts
      5,849
      10-23-2019 06:12 PM #99
      It will be interesting to see what customer cars Dyno at.

      This will be a huge scandal if it is significantly less then the press cars.

      Popcorn either way

    26. Member
      Join Date
      Oct 22nd, 2007
      Location
      Syracuse, NY
      Posts
      2,563
      Cars
      982, F22, E88, etc.
      10-23-2019 06:30 PM #100
      I too don't see how a pushrod V8 can beat a GT3RS on torque/liter. But I don't know that the conclusion is that they sent bored-out ringers, which as mentioned could be checked without too much difficulty. It might be the dyno, the testing conditions, the software, etc. Maybe there's even race fuel in the cars...if there's a factory 100 octane MAP, it may be a bit misleading but not cheating near the level of a bored-out motor. And 92lbfts on a high-performance 100octane V8 sounds reasonable even if it is OHV.

      Get all the pre-orders, then admit it was on race fuel? Unless the press car was refueled before dyno, I could believe that. I don't even think I would be upset...so long as it were a factory option.

    Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •