stock gen 5 on dyno Hoonigan

[heath1225]

Our running average for stock Gen V's is sitting at 533 WHP, and that's including the outliers like some low units registering 499, and one "freak" that made 557. These are 100% stock as baselines on the cars before we build them. Be sure to hone in on me saying there that STOCK Gen V's have varied as much as fifty-eight rear wheel HP, or nearly 10% in other words. This isn't that uncommon in the realm of OEM cars when you look at tolerance stacking of internal parts which can change static compression ratio for instance, then build tolerances for leakdown, then sealing tolerances for used engines over time.

We've tested a LOT of different combinations, including Prefix Head/Cam cars, 9.0L standards, 9.0L X's, other aftermarket companies head/cam cars, etc. To date we've never seen a stock displacement Gen V make over 700 WHP NA on our dyno even though there are plenty of claims out there that it's "normal". The Prefix stuff is very consistent, with the standard displacement head/cam cars usually making right around 635 - 655 WHP, which is a respectable 120 WHP gain on an already rather powerful (OEM) NA engine.

This is all SAE corrected above, but note that chassis dyno's are not held to a singular method for measuring/deriving power across manufacturers. That means that each MFG has their own way of deriving the power figure based on the input information available, and even the MFG's that use the same style of load sensing can choose to calculate those values differently.

Take all the above for whatever it's worth to you, but I assure you that you'll just confuse and mislead yourself trying to draw comparisons from one dyno to another, with different cars, in different climates, etc. There just isn't an accurate enough way to do it, unfortunately. Even basing things off of 1/4 trap speed, something we as a company are very familiar with and usually basing judgment from - is so highly impacted by Density Altitude that it can surely skew your comparison if you're not aware of it.

For us, the true measuring stick is an A to B delta on your car, your engine, same dyno, similar testing method and weather if possible. That's as close as you can get to factual information on the change provided by a set of modifications.

This is on your hub dyno, correct? If so, there will be no variation for tire location on a drum or strap tightness, thus better data recording.

[Nth Moto]

This is on your hub dyno, correct? If so, there will be no variation for tire location on a drum or strap tightness, thus better data recording.

That's correct. Just a tire pressure change can make an impact on a roller dyno, not to mention type of tire, strap tightness as you said... plenty of variations will make noticeable differences. Those are percentage based so the inconsistency goes up as the power goes up.

We also have it calibrated to read a bit lower than typical hub dyno's since you're not spinning the mass of the wheel/tire, so for validation runs we've set it up to be more in line with a traditional eddy current roller dyno. Of course, we back that up with fuel use calculations to double validate, and even when we get up into the 3000+ range the power vs weight checks out very accurately for the MPH we run in the 1/4 mile.

[Aevus]

Our running average for stock Gen V's is sitting at 533 WHP.

is it correct to assume that average trap speed would be around 129MPH?


https://robrobinette.com/et.htm


3630lbs (w/200lbs driver included)

[Steve M]

is it correct to assume that average trap speed would be around 129MPH?


https://robrobinette.com/et.htm


3630lbs (w/200lbs driver included)

In good air at my local track (like ~1,000 ft DA with ~800 feet actual elevation above sea level), that's probably about right based on my own data, but the quality of driving (specifically how fast you shift and how consistently you hit the 3-4 shift point) does make a difference in trap speeds. Or at least it did for me.

[99RT10]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJKoX1wOuxc

[Mikey]

Our running average for stock Gen V's is sitting at 533 WHP, and that's including the outliers like some low units registering 499, and one "freak" that made 557. These are 100% stock as baselines on the cars before we build them. Be sure to hone in on me saying there that STOCK Gen V's have varied as much as fifty-eight rear wheel HP, or nearly 10% in other words. This isn't that uncommon in the realm of OEM cars when you look at tolerance stacking of internal parts which can change static compression ratio for instance, then build tolerances for leakdown, then sealing tolerances for used engines over time.

We've tested a LOT of different combinations, including Prefix Head/Cam cars, 9.0L standards, 9.0L X's, other aftermarket companies head/cam cars, etc. To date we've never seen a stock displacement Gen V make over 700 WHP NA on our dyno even though there are plenty of claims out there that it's "normal". The Prefix stuff is very consistent, with the standard displacement head/cam cars usually making right around 635 - 655 WHP, which is a respectable 120 WHP gain on an already rather powerful (OEM) NA engine.

This is all SAE corrected above, but note that chassis dyno's are not held to a singular method for measuring/deriving power across manufacturers. That means that each MFG has their own way of deriving the power figure based on the input information available, and even the MFG's that use the same style of load sensing can choose to calculate those values differently.

Take all the above for whatever it's worth to you, but I assure you that you'll just confuse and mislead yourself trying to draw comparisons from one dyno to another, with different cars, in different climates, etc. There just isn't an accurate enough way to do it, unfortunately. Even basing things off of 1/4 trap speed, something we as a company are very familiar with and usually basing judgment from - is so highly impacted by Density Altitude that it can surely skew your comparison if you're not aware of it.

For us, the true measuring stick is an A to B delta on your car, your engine, same dyno, similar testing method and weather if possible. That's as close as you can get to factual information on the change provided by a set of modifications.

Any idea of what calvo and a&configure do different to get to that 700whp mark?

[Nth Moto]

Any idea of what calvo and a&configure do different to get to that 700whp mark?

I wrote out two different responses here and no matter how I do so, I feel like it reads as though I'm downplaying another company and I really don't want it to come across that way. The only thing I feel I can do is repeat what I said earlier but with more detail - that to date we have not had a stock displacement head/cam car come through our hands and make over 700 WHP, including an example from one of the above mentioned companies. It was a baseline test before taking it apart to turn into a turbo car, and it came with a dyno sheet for over 700 when it was originally built and it made in the 670's for us. Which made absolute sense given what we saw done to it, and those are respectable gains over an OEM car. We simply chalked it up to different dyno's, different atmosphere... all the things I mentioned before.

When I say "stock displacement head/cam" I mean a simple, stock bottom end, basic heads/cam build with OEM ECU, pump gas, etc. Similar to a Prefix head/cam build, if you will.

We've built NA stuff that has stock displacement and made over 700 WHP (740 actually), but it was a built engine, MoTeC, really good valvetrain, ethanol, raised compression, a lot of cam (which was only drivable due to having a MoTeC) etc. It should've made that much, as it had the supporting modification list to go with it. So let me be overly clear - I'm not saying it's not possible (it is), but it takes significant effort and an appropriate build approach to do so in my opinion... on our dyno.

I hope that came across appropriate and as an educational piece as intended.

[Mikey]

I wrote out two different responses here and no matter how I do so, I feel like it reads as though I'm downplaying another company and I really don't want it to come across that way. The only thing I feel I can do is repeat what I said earlier but with more detail - that to date we have not had a stock displacement head/cam car come through our hands and make over 700 WHP, including an example from one of the above mentioned companies. It was a baseline test before taking it apart to turn into a turbo car, and it came with a dyno sheet for over 700 when it was originally built and it made in the 670's for us. Which made absolute sense given what we saw done to it, and those are respectable gains over an OEM car. We simply chalked it up to different dyno's, different atmosphere... all the things I mentioned before.

When I say "stock displacement head/cam" I mean a simple, stock bottom end, basic heads/cam build with OEM ECU, pump gas, etc. Similar to a Prefix head/cam build, if you will.

We've built NA stuff that has stock displacement and made over 700 WHP (740 actually), but it was a built engine, MoTeC, really good valvetrain, ethanol, raised compression, a lot of cam (which was only drivable due to having a MoTeC) etc. It should've made that much, as it had the supporting modification list to go with it. So let me be overly clear - I'm not saying it's not possible (it is), but it takes significant effort and an appropriate build approach to do so in my opinion... on our dyno.

I hope that came across appropriate and as an educational piece as intended.

Completely understand
Myself and others were a bit disappointed with the heads and cam numbers, but I was explained briefly that the final dyno number is a very small part of the story and that the power across the entire powerband is what makes the difference. I.e sneakysnakes was beating higher hp vehicles despite similar weight. Would you care to explain that a bit further?

[Steve M]

Completely understand
Myself and others were a bit disappointed with the heads and cam numbers, but I was explained briefly that the final dyno number is a very small part of the story and that the power across the entire powerband is what makes the difference. I.e sneakysnakes was beating higher hp vehicles despite similar weight. Would you care to explain that a bit further?

Alex (sneakysnakes) is an excellent driver - he drives the shit out of that thing. Based on my personal experience, powershifting (which he sometimes does) is worth 0.1-0.2 seconds and 1-2 MPH in the quarter mile. That's like adding 10-20 HP at these power levels and race weights.

[Mikey]

Alex (sneakysnakes) is an excellent driver - he drives the shit out of that thing. Based on my personal experience, powershifting (which he sometimes does) is worth 0.1-0.2 seconds and 1-2 MPH in the quarter mile. That's like adding 10-20 HP at these power levels and race weights.

I didn't think about that, explains why he rebuilds the trans so often

[Arizona Vipers]

When my 9L Extreme was built Prefix put it on an engine dyno and it made exactly 800HP (torque was 759). Mark Jorgensen put the car on a Mustang Dyno after engine installation and it did 650HP to the wheels (torque was 593). This was with the Nth Moto clutch. If my math is right that is an 18.75% drivetrain loss, seems like a lot but Mark believed it was consistent with the engine dyno give the high power ratings. There could have been some tire slip. I don't know off hand what the correction value was on the Mustang Dyno.

It must have been pulling huge timing, your motor makes way more than that. Also was that on ACR wheels and Kumho's? That's over 20lbs a corner extra weight over a normal wheel and tire. On my stock ACR, it made 30hp+ more back to back with Forgelines/slicks than Kumho's/OEM ACR wheels. The difference was so big it screwed me at Nasa Nationals at cota 4-5 years ago.

[heath1225]

I wrote out two different responses here and no matter how I do so, I feel like it reads as though I'm downplaying another company and I really don't want it to come across that way. The only thing I feel I can do is repeat what I said earlier but with more detail - that to date we have not had a stock displacement head/cam car come through our hands and make over 700 WHP, including an example from one of the above mentioned companies. It was a baseline test before taking it apart to turn into a turbo car, and it came with a dyno sheet for over 700 when it was originally built and it made in the 670's for us. Which made absolute sense given what we saw done to it, and those are respectable gains over an OEM car. We simply chalked it up to different dyno's, different atmosphere... all the things I mentioned before.

When I say "stock displacement head/cam" I mean a simple, stock bottom end, basic heads/cam build with OEM ECU, pump gas, etc. Similar to a Prefix head/cam build, if you will.

We've built NA stuff that has stock displacement and made over 700 WHP (740 actually), but it was a built engine, MoTeC, really good valvetrain, ethanol, raised compression, a lot of cam (which was only drivable due to having a MoTeC) etc. It should've made that much, as it had the supporting modification list to go with it. So let me be overly clear - I'm not saying it's not possible (it is), but it takes significant effort and an appropriate build approach to do so in my opinion... on our dyno.

I hope that came across appropriate and as an educational piece as intended.

Similar experiences occur on our local Dynojet. Several “600+” rwhp NA corvettes get on the dyno only to be disappointed. One I remember very well was reported to make 612rwhp. It was an LS7. It made 575 on this dyno. It still went 9.9x @139 in the 1/4 mile. In fact, no LS7 has eclipsed 600 rwhp NA on this dyno.

I know you had made a post in the past showing dyno results for various heads/cam Gen 5 on your dyno. I can’t seem to find it. What was the spread between the other companies’ H/C build on your dyno?

[Arizona Vipers]

is it correct to assume that average trap speed would be around 129MPH?


https://robrobinette.com/et.htm


3630lbs (w/200lbs driver included)

The fastest Gen 5 trap speed in the 1/4 in all the magazines I ever saw was 125mph.

[Steve M]

The fastest Gen 5 trap speed in the 1/4 in all the magazines I ever saw was 125mph.

Nineball's 2013 SRT he took into the high 10s trapped 127 on that run, and 129 on some of the others he ran that same day. Granted, that was in really good weather on drag radials.

[Aevus]

The fastest Gen 5 trap speed in the 1/4 in all the magazines I ever saw was 125mph.

4,000 pounds w/ 533whp would calculate 125.6mph

so either the actual weight of the car w/driver is heavier OR that calculator is misleading OR the average wheel ponies of a gen 5 is close to 500 and not 533...

[Sniper]

I weighed my car without me in it and it was 3240 lbs.

[Steve M]

4,000 pounds w/ 533whp would calculate 125.6mph

so either the actual weight of the car w/driver is heavier OR that calculator is misleading OR the average wheel ponies of a gen 5 is close to 500 and not 533...

The calculator is a bit misleading - it makes assumptions for the DA (unknown) and the drivetrain loss (a flat 11%) that don't reflect reality.

[Aevus]

and the drivetrain loss (a flat 11%) that don't reflect reality.

I used the wheel horsepower though

is that calculator could be THAT off?

So far, we ''know'' that average whp should be 533 and average trap speeds are around 124-127 mph... on the calculator that would give 475-480whp if the car w/driver weighs 3,450 to 3,700 pounds (min/max).

I guess, the only way to know is to test the calculator with another car model with lots of proven data

[Aevus]

Steve, let's take your 10.86 @ 130.66

it calculates about 550whp for 3,670 pounds (or 532whp for 3,550 pounds)

is that make any sense based on what you know of your car ?

[Whitey]

I wrote out two different responses here and no matter how I do so, I feel like it reads as though I'm downplaying another company and I really don't want it to come across that way. The only thing I feel I can do is repeat what I said earlier but with more detail - that to date we have not had a stock displacement head/cam car come through our hands and make over 700 WHP, including an example from one of the above mentioned companies. It was a baseline test before taking it apart to turn into a turbo car, and it came with a dyno sheet for over 700 when it was originally built and it made in the 670's for us. Which made absolute sense given what we saw done to it, and those are respectable gains over an OEM car. We simply chalked it up to different dyno's, different atmosphere... all the things I mentioned before.

When I say "stock displacement head/cam" I mean a simple, stock bottom end, basic heads/cam build with OEM ECU, pump gas, etc. Similar to a Prefix head/cam build, if you will.

We've built NA stuff that has stock displacement and made over 700 WHP (740 actually), but it was a built engine, MoTeC, really good valvetrain, ethanol, raised compression, a lot of cam (which was only drivable due to having a MoTeC) etc. It should've made that much, as it had the supporting modification list to go with it. So let me be overly clear - I'm not saying it's not possible (it is), but it takes significant effort and an appropriate build approach to do so in my opinion... on our dyno.

I hope that came across appropriate and as an educational piece as intended.

The legend of CAMZILLA lives on!

https://youtu.be/yMb4QRhWT5E

One of the most radical hot rods I've ever driven.

[Steve M]

Steve, let's take your 10.86 @ 130.66

it calculates about 550whp for 3,670 pounds (or 532whp for 3,550 pounds)

is that make any sense based on what you know of your car ?

That's probably about in line. The car was around 3,525 pounds race weight for that pass @ 1,344 ft DA (actual from my Kestrel 5100). I backed it up with a 10.94 @ 131.08 - the DA was 1,169 ft on that pass.

I drove the car substantially better on the second pass, but my 60' time is what kept my e.t. slower than it should have been. My 60-130 time for the 10.86 pass was 7.56 seconds - the 60-130 time for the 10.94 pass was 7.37 seconds.

The main issue is that I've never dyno'd my car - I'd estimate it falls around the 520-530 RWHP mark given the mods, but I don't know for certain. My power mods have not changed since I started racing, but I have dropped about 150 pounds of excess weight since my first passes. The car has trapped anywhere from 126-131 MPH regardless of the weight, and largely regardless of the weather (due to how I have it tuned). That's how much the quality of driving matters, especially the execution of the 3-4 shift with 3.55s.

Bottom line: there are just too many variables with a stick car to give concrete quarter mile estimates.

[Mikey]

Nineball's 2013 SRT he took into the high 10s trapped 127 on that run, and 129 on some of the others he ran that same day. Granted, that was in really good weather on drag radials.

He had a lot of corvette owners panties in a bunch when he was whooping on the z06 when it was new

[Aevus]

That's probably about in line. The car was around 3,525 pounds race weight for that pass @ 1,344 ft DA (actual from my Kestrel 5100). I backed it up with a 10.94 @ 131.08 - the DA was 1,169 ft on that pass.

I drove the car substantially better on the second pass, but my 60' time is what kept my e.t. slower than it should have been. My 60-130 time for the 10.86 pass was 7.56 seconds - the 60-130 time for the 10.94 pass was 7.37 seconds.

The main issue is that I've never dyno'd my car - I'd estimate it falls around the 520-530 RWHP mark given the mods, but I don't know for certain. My power mods have not changed since I started racing, but I have dropped about 150 pounds of excess weight since my first passes. The car has trapped anywhere from 126-131 MPH regardless of the weight, and largely regardless of the weather (due to how I have it tuned). That's how much the quality of driving matters, especially the execution of the 3-4 shift with 3.55s.

Bottom line: there are just too many variables with a stick car to give concrete quarter mile estimates.

So the calculator cannot be THAT off.

My bet is on a massive overestimation of the Viper's ponies. For the sake of marketing. Meanwhile, McLaren and Porsche are doing the opposite... they underestimate the wheel HPs on basically all their vehicles.

So basically we have here a Viper Gen 5 advertized for 640hp that loses almost 17% for an average of 533whp on a reliable dyno, but then in real world it performs as a 480whp.

Is it because it pulls timing like crazy?
Is upgrading to Motec the answer?

[Aevus]

The only car I drove so far that is faster than my Viper is a Mclaren 720s. And it was clearly much more powerful.

https://fastestlaps.com/tests/f7pm77n8d519

According to them, a stock 720s can do 9.9sec @ 148mph

so based on the calculator, with a 200lbs driver (3,328lbs) it's roughly 680-720whp.

That's a loss of 6% to 0% from the advertized ''crank'' power (!)

Turbo S 992 is probably as crazy if not more

edit: couldnt resist.

It also raced through the quarter-mile in 10.1 seconds at 137 mph.
The 992-generation Turbo S is powered by a twin-turbo 3.7-liter flat-six that produces 640 horsepower and 590 lb-ft of torque.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a3...ng-zero-to-60/

According to the calculator, ladies & gentleman, that car creates HP out of thin air.

3,821lbs + 200lbs driver = 4,021lbs
640 advertized HP (same as a Gen 5 snake)

SHOULD do 10.74 sec @ 133mph, with zero loss in the drivetrain.

but no, it creates 60 extra wheel ponies.

So basically the Turbo S should be advertized as a 800 crank HP.

[Steve M]

Don't underestimate the effectiveness of a DCT when it comes to quarter mile times and traps.

I think it is also well known and well understood that the Gen 4 & 5 Vipers pull a significant amount of timing when things start getting warm. It only takes 77 degree F intake temps for the stock PCM to start pulling timing, and it does so in a hurry. I think the engineers underestimated the impact of said timing pull when it comes to power production, but that's the trade for engine longevity. I've seen stock-ish Gen 4s trap anywhere from 122-129 depending on weather conditions. Gen 5s don't pull timing quite as aggressively as the Gen 4s from what I've seen, but it's still there.