C6 Chassis Dyno Numbers Inside (Actual)>>>>
08-03-2004, 09:43 PM
#1
Collections Hold
Thread Starter
Member Since: Aug 2002
Location: Fort Wayne Indiana
Posts: 2,899
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
C6 Chassis Dyno Numbers Inside (Actual)>>>>
For those that are interested:
We had an opportunity to chassis dyno pull a stone stock C6 w/ an M6 today and we are pleased to see that it shouldn't be too difficult to produce some very good, clean power with this new platform.
- 347 RWHP/ 349 RWTQ
- Over 300 ft./lbs. RWTQ from 2616-5947 RPM
- RWTQ Peak: 4527 RPM
- RWHP Peak: 5944 RPM
Dyno cell conditions:
94* ambient
97% humidity
Road test highlights:
We also drove the car for quite a distance over different types of roads and found it to be a much more refined version of the C5. The magnetic suspension reacts to road irregularities with amazing speed~ in fact, un-detectable and the transmission shifter feels very positive. (a refined Hurst feel) The clutch is supposed to be stronger, but it feels very mushy due to even less pedal effort required to make it release. (it feels as if nothing is even there......odd indeed)
This particular model had the new Navigational System and it was interesting to watch yourself travel over the streets you are looking at right over your shoulder. The push button starter certainly is going to take some getting used to and the fact that the car doesn't have ANY door handles~ AT ALL, makes us somewhat nervous......
Anyway, to shorten this; from our standpoint, it appears as if the car is an overall improvement powertrain wise and it definately will give us tuners a much better platform to make upgrades in nearly every catagory of development. We're not too sure if we like the ergonomics or some of the body re-styling que's just yet, but maybe if we give it a bit of time, it may grow on us. The big butt of the C5 did.....
Best Regards,
DTE
We had an opportunity to chassis dyno pull a stone stock C6 w/ an M6 today and we are pleased to see that it shouldn't be too difficult to produce some very good, clean power with this new platform.
- 347 RWHP/ 349 RWTQ
- Over 300 ft./lbs. RWTQ from 2616-5947 RPM
- RWTQ Peak: 4527 RPM
- RWHP Peak: 5944 RPM
Dyno cell conditions:
94* ambient
97% humidity
Road test highlights:
We also drove the car for quite a distance over different types of roads and found it to be a much more refined version of the C5. The magnetic suspension reacts to road irregularities with amazing speed~ in fact, un-detectable and the transmission shifter feels very positive. (a refined Hurst feel) The clutch is supposed to be stronger, but it feels very mushy due to even less pedal effort required to make it release. (it feels as if nothing is even there......odd indeed)
This particular model had the new Navigational System and it was interesting to watch yourself travel over the streets you are looking at right over your shoulder. The push button starter certainly is going to take some getting used to and the fact that the car doesn't have ANY door handles~ AT ALL, makes us somewhat nervous......
Anyway, to shorten this; from our standpoint, it appears as if the car is an overall improvement powertrain wise and it definately will give us tuners a much better platform to make upgrades in nearly every catagory of development. We're not too sure if we like the ergonomics or some of the body re-styling que's just yet, but maybe if we give it a bit of time, it may grow on us. The big butt of the C5 did.....
Best Regards,
DTE
08-03-2004, 10:02 PM
#2
Race Director
Great numbers. 
For comparison, my 99 coupe #'s
312RWHP/324RWTQ
Only mod is Borla Stingers.
For comparison, my 99 coupe #'s
312RWHP/324RWTQ
Only mod is Borla Stingers.
Last edited by JR_VETTE; 08-03-2004 at 10:04 PM.
08-03-2004, 10:19 PM
#3
Team Owner
Member Since: Feb 2000
Location: Conroe Texas
Posts: 35,222
Received 865 Likes
on
608 Posts
CI 1-4-5-8-9-10 Vet
St. Jude Donor '03,'04,'05,'07,08,'09,'10,’17
Thanks for the info. I believe you hace "scooped" the rest. Were those corrected numbers? Your atmosheric conditions are definitely poor for performance. Can you post a graph?
08-03-2004, 10:21 PM
#4
Team Owner
Member Since: Feb 2000
Location: Conroe Texas
Posts: 35,222
Received 865 Likes
on
608 Posts
CI 1-4-5-8-9-10 Vet
St. Jude Donor '03,'04,'05,'07,08,'09,'10,’17
Thanks for the info. I believe you have "scooped" the rest. Were those corrected numbers? Your atmosheric conditions are definitely poor for performance. Can you post a graph?
08-03-2004, 10:47 PM
#6
Team Owner
And that's as she drives, with all of the accessories belted up and running, right? No rigging of numbers by taking the belt off, eh?
I can deal with that. My stock 99 made 311HP/317FT# on a fairly cool day.
I can deal with that. My stock 99 made 311HP/317FT# on a fairly cool day.
08-03-2004, 10:55 PM
#7
Team Owner
Member Since: May 2001
Location: Exiled to Richmond, VA - Finally sold my house in Murfreesboro, TN ?? Corner of "Bumf*&k and 'You've got a purdy mouth'."
Posts: 29,745
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
CI 6-7-8 Veteran
CI-VIII Burnout Champ
St. Jude Donor '06-'10, '13
What brand of dyno was used ?
08-04-2004, 08:43 AM
#11
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Mar 2002
Location: highland village texas
Posts: 1,176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dyno on bone-stock C5s with under 500 miles and then again after 1500-2000 miles showed approximately 5-8 rwhp gain after "break-in" milage...lots of Forum discussion about was this result of built-in programing from GM. But if from programing or from motor itself it was common to see...maybe the C6 347rwhp after a few hundred miles will also pick up a few hp and break 350rwhp...almost exactly the same as 02-04 ZO6.
08-04-2004, 12:11 PM
#15
Team Owner
Makes me happy with my 352rwhp C5 (dynoed on a rainy day and I mean RAINING! 
) also more reason to hold on till the C6Z06...I can't wait!
08-04-2004, 12:52 PM
#17
Team Owner
That is better than your typical C5 Dyno SAE vs RWHP, however, I was hoping for another 10-15 RWHP to build on to be really competitive in straight line performance.
08-04-2004, 05:10 PM
#18
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cruise-In II Veteran
Cruise-In III Veteran
Cruise-In IV Veteran
Well the Horsepower numbers are right where GM claimed, so it looks like I was wrong by saying that it'd be underrated from the factory to placate the C5 owners...however perhaps there is a slight tweak that can/will be done in the next model year to bump it up a few horses? Plus this is the only one that has been independently dynoed that I know of.
I like the numbers either way, love the torque curve, and salivate at the possibilities of merely putting in a '02 Z06 cam.
I like the numbers either way, love the torque curve, and salivate at the possibilities of merely putting in a '02 Z06 cam.
08-04-2004, 05:45 PM
#19
☠☣☢ Semper Ebrius ☢☣☠
Originally Posted by stormy652
Well the Horsepower numbers are right where GM claimed, so it looks like I was wrong by saying that it'd be underrated from the factory to placate the C5 owners.
