[quote]ORIGINAL: rufaryif


But then you would really be doing some serious harm to my fragile ego
don't do it.....don't do it!!!!

Now, now, PeceMkr! Your ride is soooo good looking, maybe the guys at the shop were just jealous.

Now go outside and tell your baby how proud you are of her.
RJ

 

Dave, I'm not sure about the correction factor that was used. They gave me a printout of the numbers when they were done. However, it appears that the difference factor between the STD and the SAE = 1.04. According to the printout my C5 put out torque at 362.2 lb-ft STD and 348.3 lb-ft SAE at 3333 rpm.

 

Thanks for your support RJ! It looks like Lee decided to spare my ego.....he's such a great guy!

I pounced on a Neon last night. He started racing me after we were already going about 45 mph. Not even close! By the time he blew by me I was already stopped at the next light to turn left. Last night was good as a "pick me up"

I'm going to reward my C5's loyalty with a new custom paint job next month. She'll be getting a new deep black glossy finish!


[quote]ORIGINAL: rjensen

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dave, I thought the C5 LS1 engine put out 375 lbs-ft @ 4400 rpm (6 speed manual) and 360 lbs-ft@4000 rpm (4 speed auto). The Z06 C5 is said to put out 400 lbs-ft @ 4800 rpm. Do I have the wrong numbers?

 

I think he is quoting test numbers at the rear wheels, the 400 ft lbs you quote is the rating at the flywheel. ZO6s drop about 45 ft lbs in driveline losses so his car is in the range that they produce.

 

Lee is correct. The numbers I quoted are Rear Wheel Horsepower numbers. With a 12% drivetrain loss, my SAE-corrected torque is equivalent to about 394 lbs-ft of torque at the crank. Based upon what I've seen at dyno days, this much torque is higher than most C5s with the same mods (no tuning). As I mentioned before, a bone stock 2002 Z06 put down smaller torque numbers. I'm sure that with a good dyno tune, my torque would be over 400. Remember, HP is great for bragging rights, but torque is what benefits you the most in day-to-day driving on the street. Anyone who has driven a Honda S2000 or Mazda RX8 can attest to that. These cars are very much lacking in the torque department and hence, must be wound out to stratospheric revs to attain any decent acceleration.

 

So Lee, that means that I'm in their range as well....huh? Based on a 362 lbs-ft reading at the rear wheel, what do you think my corrected figure would be at the crank? Would it be 12% loss for me too? Remember, I have a 4-speed auto. Does that make a difference? Once again, thanks for the education. The day I stop learning will be the day I die.

 

Im almost sure the auto trans makes a difference but not sure how much.

 

362 measured at the rear wheels would be about 422 at the flywheel on an A4, they have 14% losses of their flywheel rating from engine to rear wheels, equivalent to about 16.6% of the net left at the rear wheels.