i know how we all say the the numbers GM puts out for The SS/SC are weak, What are the real numbers. Crank and at the wheels. And if these are exaggerated then are the stage kits exaggerated as well? Anyone with stg 2 no how much power there puttin to the crank. i've been lookin around couldnt really find to much help. any help would apprecaited...

 

The answer to your question is... SEARCH

 

well everything ive read says that gm under rates the horsepower of the car, not exaggerate them

 

 

stock dyno in sig...i think the posted 240ish for stage 2 is pretty close

 

the cars are under rated by about 10hp. the stage kits i believe are about right.

 

both are underrated, gm rates stock at 205 at the crank and most make more than that at the wheels and stage 2 gm rates for 241 at the crank when most get around that at the wheels.

 

on a more important note, didnt GM claim 6 flat 0-60 and 14.4 in the quarter. most people stock dont do that. claimed .5 off 0-60 and .7 in the quarter with stage 2 when most are only breaking into low 14's with it

 

There are to many variables to quote 0-60 and 1/4 mile times ,and then compare them to what people are getting . Track prep , elevation , humidity , air temp , drivers , and different track timmers and systems . Not a flame , i'm just not sure we can say that GM claimed lower track times than what the car is capable of under the right conditions .

 

Funny thing is, I cut a 5.5 0 to 60 and dropped .6 off my 1/4 mile with stage 2. Drivers play a huge roll in track times.

 

what is the percentage of crank HP most FWD cars bleed off putting it down to the pavement? If it's 20%, then our engines are putting about 255hp to the crank stock assuming 215whp? stage 2 would be just short of 290 to the crank assuming 240whp? Maybe 20% is a bit high, but even 10% bleed would be 240 and 265 to the crank. Either way, GM severely underrated these cars, and my insurance bill thanks them!

 

Manual transmissions usually bleed between 15-18%. Automatics are more, around 20-22%.

 

i agree with all that, but it wasnt my point haha. my point was that dyno numbers dont mean ****, its about how the car actually performs.

 

We are about 8-11% FWD tranys are very effiecient.

 

yeah i would say the gm numbers are pretty much right on. stock they are slightly underated by about 10 hp. but that probably cause they did not want to look like honda with the civic si, claim 197hp and make atleast 10hp less. ive never seen one dyno over 188hp stock and the torque numbers are like some kind of a joke.

as far as quarter mi and 0-60 times, thats all conditions and drvier skill im sure i could run a 9.0sec 0-60 if all i did was spin the tires. so when i see people on hear saying these cars are over rated and the times are way off, i know that its just the driver thats over rated.

 

That's because GM rated the 205hp at I believe 5600rpm or so, but she pulls all the way to the 6450 stock redline which means that our car is still making power. Good on GM for helping with lower insurance rates and making the people that don't know anything about our cars look like dumbies when they say that we should actually be pushing less then 200 to the wheels...

 

Not a chance.