CorvetteForum - Chevrolet Corvette Forum Discussion

CorvetteForum - Chevrolet Corvette Forum Discussion (https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/)
-   C7 General Discussion (https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c7-general-discussion-142/)
-   -   Sandbagging on HP...MAYBE (https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c7-general-discussion/3264549-sandbagging-on-hp-maybe.html)

Big Dan 427 05-03-2013 08:33 AM

Sandbagging on HP...MAYBE
 
Seeing how GM has been somewhat coy regarding certain aspects of the C7 do any of you guys think they may be reserving the real hp numbers? I think it's fair to say that if the car came out rated 480 plus an awful lot of folks would be real happy!:thumbs:

Slynky 05-03-2013 08:38 AM

I would say GM is more likely to lowball the final certified number than over estimate. I expect 460.

CPhelps 05-03-2013 09:03 AM

I'm very curious if the track mode enables a higher rev limit and associated power or something as well. The SAE paper had a graph showing over 7k, and numerous reports from the bash reported someone mentioned 7k in 4th. Contrasting that is all the official information from GM so far has said and shown 6600rpm. Either there is a pretty big surprise in store for the C7 /LT1 or something was slipped about future product.

As it sits now though, we were promised at least 450,I'm not expecting significantly more than that, but would love to be pleasantly surprised.

jschindler 05-03-2013 09:14 AM

My guess is that they were conservative with the 450 - rather under promise and over deliver. But I don't picture more than 470. My guess is in the 465 range.

Big Dan 427 05-03-2013 09:24 AM


Originally Posted by jschindler (Post 1583803196)
My guess is that they were conservative with the 450 - rather under promise and over deliver. But I don't picture more than 470. My guess is in the 465 range.

Well I could be wrong but with all of the anticipation GM has created not to mention the secretiveness maybe just maybe they will blow everyone's socks off with a big number. No doubt if they did that it would certainly stimulate more buzz and IMO more buyers!:thumbs:

schilitj 05-03-2013 09:35 AM

well, maybe someone, like me, will take their C7 to their speed shop and have it dynoed. Then real numbers will be available. :cheers:

lt4obsesses 05-03-2013 09:44 AM


Originally Posted by jschindler (Post 1583803196)
My guess is that they were conservative with the 450 - rather under promise and over deliver. But I don't picture more than 470. My guess is in the 465 range.

I agree with this. It will be more than 450 but not by a whole lot, I don't think. I think hoping for 475, which seems to be magical number floating around, is a bit optimistic.

It just seems to me that this redesign was not centrally focused around creating more power. I believe the redesign was more about using this power more effectively.

1KULC7 05-03-2013 09:49 AM

Actually, I was say less than the stated 450. If history proves itself on the newer model cars, they usually have less to the rear wheels than what they state. I would estimate 425 or in that area. However with the new design and new materials, what is lacking in HP will be made up in road efficiencies.

OHV4LIFE 05-03-2013 09:52 AM

Would anyone here mind it if GM purposely underrated the engine? Based on dyno results, the early GTRs were underrated by Nissan. Also, BMW is notorious for underrating their engines. From what I can tell they underrate their engines 10% across the board.

lt4obsesses 05-03-2013 09:54 AM


Originally Posted by EBVette (Post 1583803508)
Actually, I was say less than the stated 450. If history proves itself on the newer model cars, they usually have less to the rear wheels than what they state. I would estimate 425 or in that area. However with the new design and new materials, what is lacking in HP will be made up in road efficiencies.

Well, yes. The rated HP is at the crank, so of course RWHP is going to be 15-18% less.

Hemi Dave 05-03-2013 10:00 AM

470 to 500.........Actual performance is more important than HP to me

If It will out run a C6 427 ( Awesome car) at 450 HP that's fine with me Dan :)

Shrike6 05-03-2013 10:03 AM

Well, GM has said they focused on a flat torque curve that makes great torque over a large rev band. Now, given that the hold over 6 speed autobox is only rated to about 435 lb/ft, there will very likely be torque management. So, overall, the numbers may mean rather less than the actual on road performance.
Still hoping for something closer to 475 hp/ 475 tq.
We will know soon enough, and even better, when the first tests in the magazines come out.

Daekwan06 05-03-2013 10:07 AM

I think 475 will be the final number. It accomplishes everything it needs to do. It guarantees the C7 base will be significantly faster than the C6 base.

And 475 approaches C6Z06 "competitive" territory.. while still leaving plenty of room for a 525+hp C7Z06 and 650+hp C7ZR1.

Jinx 05-03-2013 10:10 AM


Originally Posted by Big Dan 427 (Post 1583803276)
Well I could be wrong but with all of the anticipation GM has created not to mention the secretiveness maybe just maybe they will blow everyone's socks off with a big number. No doubt if they did that it would certainly stimulate more buzz and IMO more buyers!:thumbs:

I think this is like hoping that the chunky girl your friend fixed you up with has lost a lot of weight since she took that Facebook photo.

.Jinx

Big Dan 427 05-03-2013 10:20 AM


Originally Posted by Tullius (Post 1583803528)
Would anyone here mind it if GM purposely underrated the engine? Based on dyno results, the early GTRs were underrated by Nissan. Also, BMW is notorious for underrating their engines. From what I can tell they underrate their engines 10% across the board.

I remember back in the 60's the L88 (I believe it was this motor) was way underrated, back then I think it had something to do with production allowances if the hp was too high. I'm sure some here can enlighten on that matter.


Originally Posted by Jinx (Post 1583803659)
I think this is like hoping that the chunky girl your friend fixed you up with has lost a lot of weight since she took that Facebook photo.

.Jinx

Hey jinx you know they say the "chunky" girls never know when they'll "get it" again so simply put hang on for the ride!!:lol:

Thread is off to a good start, lots of excellent posts!:thumbs:

OHV4LIFE 05-03-2013 10:29 AM


Originally Posted by Shrike6 (Post 1583803609)
Well, GM has said they focused on a flat torque curve that makes great torque over a large rev band. Now, given that the hold over 6 speed autobox is only rated to about 435 lb/ft, there will very likely be torque management. So, overall, the numbers may mean rather less than the actual on road performance.
Still hoping for something closer to 475 hp/ 475 tq.
We will know soon enough, and even better, when the first tests in the magazines come out.

How many people would prefer for GM to tune the engine for more peak hp at the expense of a broad torque curve?

BeaZt 05-03-2013 10:31 AM


Originally Posted by schilitj (Post 1583803365)
well, maybe someone, like me, will take their C7 to their speed shop and have it dynoed. Then real numbers will be available. :cheers:

Exactly! I think GM is going to give a small but pleasant surprise with the final "released" HP number


Originally Posted by Jinx (Post 1583803659)
I think this is like hoping that the chunky girl your friend fixed you up with has lost a lot of weight since she took that Facebook photo.

.Jinx

Slumpbusters can be fun in private :D

Turbo6TA 05-03-2013 10:37 AM

My guess ...


465 Advertised w/ NPP

M7 . . 420 RWHP SAE Corrected (DynoJet)

A6 . . 402 RWHP SAE Corrected (DynoJet)

drivestwin 05-03-2013 11:49 AM

I think that even if GM knows they can wring something like 500HP out of the LT1, it may be wise to take it easy and start it at 460 or so. Even with all the same components they can dial it down a bit.

That way they can sit back and see if the engine has any unknown issues before really leaning on the thing.

They can then step it up in later years if the engine proves reliable. They have done that with the LS series but with some minor changes in camshafts and such.

chaase 05-03-2013 12:31 PM


Originally Posted by Tullius (Post 1583803811)
How many people would prefer for GM to tune the engine for more peak hp at the expense of a broad torque curve?

I would rather have the broad torque curve since that is what I would use most when driving.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:33 PM.


© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands