: 2009 Stock CTS-V - Dyno @ 520 rwhp



dannboss
04-04-09, 09:15 PM
Today was an all V Dyno Day at 21st Century Muscle Cars. A stock 2009 CTS-V was present and made three runs on the Dyno. The first was 493 rwhp, the secoond was 506 rwhp and they noticed that the engine was losing intake pressure on the top end. They removed the top of the airbox and setup the fan directly in front of the left side of the bumper.

The third run pulled 520 rwhp from a stock V. This was on a dynojet and all other Vs that ran were in line with expectations for mods, etc...

The highlight of the day for sure....520....come on...

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e88/dannboss/CTS-V%20Dyno%20Day/IMG_7234.jpg

Fubar75207
04-04-09, 09:54 PM
seems high for stock but whatever... I'll always like to hear good news. :thumbsup:

Razorecko
04-04-09, 09:59 PM
^ auto or 6spd manual ??

neuronbob
04-04-09, 10:18 PM
Oh, a factory freak? Lucky owner.

dannboss
04-04-09, 10:23 PM
6 spd manual

Hawkeye2
04-04-09, 10:33 PM
Wow, nice!

RapidRob
04-04-09, 10:39 PM
6 spd manual

Hmmm - could be the manual is letting more power get to the wheels than an auto would. Makes sense, but seems a bit much ... ??:hmm:

Rob

GM-4-LIFE
04-04-09, 11:43 PM
Sounds like a very happy dyno...if ya know what I mean.

I am gonna dyno mine before doing any mods so I know the baseline and I am gonna dyno it on a local independent Dynojet as Dynojet numbers seem to be the industry standard.

SG

whisler151
04-05-09, 12:10 AM
With every pull the 09 V pulled more and more. They messed with the air box a bit to get the higher numbers. Would have liked to had a few other 09 Vs there to verify the numbers. The dyno was pulling very reasonable numbers all the way across. 12 Vs got their turn and all were right around where they should have been.

Razorecko
04-05-09, 11:22 AM
^ how many of those were manual. I think the manual will dyno significantly more than the 6spd auto. Its just logical

Flyboy
04-05-09, 11:42 AM
My guess that GM "under-rated" the flywheel HP......for obvious reasons. Thoughts???

Richie18
04-05-09, 12:06 PM
My guess that GM "under-rated" the flywheel HP......for obvious reasons. Thoughts???


Not possible with SAE certification now. There is a reason why the V's horsepower is 556 and the ZR1's is 638.

Razorecko
04-05-09, 12:11 PM
another benefit is that i'm sure the auto has alot more "nannying" by the ecu just to keep longetivity.

AJxtcman
04-05-09, 06:48 PM
Oh, a factory freak? Lucky owner.
No it was on a DynoJet :histeric:

seems high for stock but whatever... I'll always like to hear good news. :thumbsup:Yes it looks off :hmm:


Sounds like a very happy dyno...if ya know what I mean.

I am gonna dyno mine before doing any mods so I know the baseline and I am gonna dyno it on a local independent Dynojet as Dynojet numbers seem to be the industry standard.

SG
DynoJets are known to throw out the highest and most incorrect numbers. :duck:

I know one guy that will only go to a dynojet after a low number was put down on a dynodynamic's dyno. The dyno operator said it would be about 17% lower than a dynojet, but he said his numbers were correct and not blown up to make the customer happy.
What is more important? happy customers or reality

Richie18
04-05-09, 08:15 PM
Mustang dyno's i've heard are quite good.

Razorecko
04-05-09, 09:23 PM
best bet is just to dyno stock and than with mods on the same dyno. its the switching of dyno's thatll fubar your numbers

FreddyG
04-06-09, 01:18 PM
Sounds like a very happy dyno...if ya know what I mean.

I am gonna dyno mine before doing any mods so I know the baseline and I am gonna dyno it on a local independent Dynojet as Dynojet numbers seem to be the industry standard.

SG

I thought the same thing!

Luna.
04-06-09, 10:03 PM
I don't understand how dynos can read numbers all over the place (save for dynos that are measuring different things, like one dyno reading the tires, while another is reading the axle, etc.).

All it is is a measurement of foot-pounds of torque at the wheels, nothing more. How can that be off (unless the dyno is "broken" and isn't really measuring foot pounds of torque)??? :confused::confused::confused:

"Well, with our dyno, your car is really pulling 90% of a foot pound of torque (per unit). It reads a little differently" :confused:

How does that make any sense??

Don't misinterpret--I easily understand how conditions, say, like weather, can influence what's actually being generated by the car at that moment in time, that's fine and dandy. What's confusing to me is how the dyno can read anything other than foot pounds of torque. In other words, assuming all other things equal (like weather conditions and such), how can different dynos read/generate different foot pounds of torque?

CTSV_510
04-06-09, 10:16 PM
6.47% drivetrain loss, not bad!

:histeric:

^caddyowner
04-06-09, 10:39 PM
I don't understand how dynos can read numbers all over the place (save for dynos that are measuring different things, like one dyno reading the tires, while another is reading the axle, etc.).

All it is is a measurement of foot-pounds of torque at the wheels, nothing more. How can that be off (unless the dyno is "broken" and isn't really measuring foot pounds of torque)??? :confused::confused::confused:

"Well, with our dyno, your car is really pulling 90% of a foot pound of torque (per unit). It reads a little differently" :confused:

How does that make any sense??

Don't misinterpret--I easily understand how conditions, say, like weather, can influence what's actually being generated by the car at that moment in time, that's fine and dandy. What's confusing to me is how the dyno can read anything other than foot pounds of torque. In other words, assuming all other things equal (like weather conditions and such), how can different dynos read/generate different foot pounds of torque?

Even with correction factors there are variations. Engine dynos will vary 2 percent from one to another even with all things being equal. They are simply strain gauges with math to account for the deformation.

Luna.
04-06-09, 11:08 PM
Even with correction factors there are variations. Engine dynos will vary 2 percent from one to another even with all things being equal. They are simply strain gauges with math to account for the deformation.

Yeah, I should have mentioned that above. I understand that as well.

It sure does seem, however, that certain dynos could "read" the same car and generate numbers outside the 2% range, but maybe that's just me.

CIWS
04-07-09, 10:36 AM
seems high for stock but whatever... I'll always like to hear good news. :thumbsup:


Their dyno reads lower than LGs and higher than CoD :D



It's funny how all the excuses come out just because the car made numbers that don't seem comparable to other 09Vs tested on other dynos in different conditions. Unless the cars were ran there together on the same day, trying to compare numbers is very relative. But in this case there were several other cars ran on that dyno, that same day both before and after the 09V, and in those cases they were exactly where they should be. So that does tend to lead to some credence that the numbers were in the ballpark. I'm believing the owner got a really well built 09V, but in any case what should be seen there is a reenforcement that the car has some hidden HP if it's allowed to breathe a little better.

Silver -V-
04-07-09, 12:44 PM
The 2009 V that was tested is my car. I was very surprised at the total power we were able to generate at the wheels. I was expecting a pull of about 465 - 475 HP based on driveline loss. The car has been very stout since the day I drove it off of the lot, but I believe I may have a good engine, which could see some significant gains through a little better breathing and light tuning.

The first test we ran I was shocked at the numbers we were able to get out of my car (2009 CTS V - 6 spd. Man. Stock). The first run was 493.6 hp, 483.4 Tq. We noticed a blip in the top end of the first Dyno pull, so we decided to find a way to open up the airbox a little. There was no quick airbox opening, so we simply took off the top of the airbox, and zip tied the stock air filter in place on the bottom half of the airbox. A second run was made and the car put up 506.3 hp. and 481.2 lbs./ft of torque.

We let the engine and computer cool down, and then made a good run after the car's computer was able to learn the new airflow and fuel mixes. That run resulted in an astonishing 520.6 hp., and 490.5 lbs./ft.

For a final run, we returned the airbox to the original stock configuration and ran a 511.7 HP, and 491.2 lbs./ft torque. It shows that a little breathing help will really let this engine run! The dyno showed over 100 hp and significant torque increases compared to a stock BMW M5 this shop had tested recently.

This was a great day for the Dallas area owners. Thanks go out to the organizers and 21st Century Muscle Cars for hosting a fun day.
Thanks again for the Dyno day and get-together!

Short video of the last run -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFwIA0_tgBw

http://i374.photobucket.com/albums/oo183/moth-94987/CIMG0878.jpg
http://i374.photobucket.com/albums/oo183/moth-94987/CIMG0877.jpg
http://i374.photobucket.com/albums/oo183/moth-94987/CIMG0898.jpg
http://i374.photobucket.com/albums/oo183/moth-94987/CIMG0903.jpg

musclesbmf
04-07-09, 12:52 PM
Understand that they made adjustments to a/f ratio.... That makes significant changes to performance. Stock he means noaftermarket parts, but the tune is not stock.

Luna.
04-07-09, 01:05 PM
It's funny how all the excuses come out just because the car made numbers that don't seem comparable to other 09Vs tested on other dynos in different conditions.

Yes, but it is understandable that it's going to raise some eyebrows. And I think that's often a good thing.

My initial reaction when reading your comment was to think that you sound like one of the guys defending Enron in early 2000s...


Understand that they made adjustments to a/f ratio.... That makes significant changes to performance. Stock he means noaftermarket parts, but the tune is not stock.

:bigroll:

If that's the case, then yeah, I agree 100%, it isn't stock. My car turned 521 after a tune as well. I was thinking that this car would generate something in the neighborhood of, say, 570+ rwhp after a tune.

If that was the case, then congratulations, for few are going to have those types of insane numbers without additional modifications...

CIWS
04-07-09, 01:16 PM
My initial reaction when reading your comment was to think that you sound like one of the guys defending Enron in early 2000s...

Not quite sure of the Enron context but, OK.
The fact it's a bit out of the ordinary is great that it raises some questions as to why it may be that way. The owner pretty much spelled out what happened in his post above. :)

verbs
04-07-09, 08:58 PM
Understand that they made adjustments to a/f ratio.... That makes significant changes to performance. Stock he means noaftermarket parts, but the tune is not stock.


The only adjustment was ripping off the stock airbox which is going to lean the rich factory tune out a bit, that's it.


I have two gripes with this thread as it's misleading. The first is that when you rip open the airbox, your car is no longer stock...so the thread title is misleading. Second of all, the dynojet is reading the spike at the end from hitting the rev limiter, and that's giving a false hp reading and making the car look as if it's making another 10rwhp than it really is.

I see the car made 511rwhp on the last truly "stock" run. $100 says that number came on a 10rwhp spike as well like the graph posted, so in reality this car is making about 500rwhp stock, not 520rwhp.

Still phenomenal numbers.


For those wondering about variation, LSx motors seem to always dyno highest on the 3rd dyno run. I've owned 3 LSx motors and they all did that, and same went for others.

Anything can change run to run, as the engine warms up, etc.

dannboss
04-08-09, 12:23 AM
The only adjustment was ripping off the stock airbox which is going to lean the rich factory tune out a bit, that's it.


I have two gripes with this thread as it's misleading. The first is that when you rip open the airbox, your car is no longer stock...so the thread title is misleading. Second of all, the dynojet is reading the spike at the end from hitting the rev limiter, and that's giving a false hp reading and making the car look as if it's making another 10rwhp than it really is.

I see the car made 511rwhp on the last truly "stock" run. $100 says that number came on a 10rwhp spike as well like the graph posted, so in reality this car is making about 500rwhp stock, not 520rwhp.

Still phenomenal numbers.


For those wondering about variation, LSx motors seem to always dyno highest on the 3rd dyno run. I've owned 3 LSx motors and they all did that, and same went for others.

Anything can change run to run, as the engine warms up, etc.

If the dyno is reading the "spike" at the end, did the engine not still make 520 in the "spike"? It seems to me that the dyno reads what the engine makes, and most people will claim the highest number. That being the case, at what point on the curve is where it should be read? Anything lower than max makes no sense.

Even if it made 511 "completely stock", 511 is what it made.

musclesbmf
04-08-09, 10:38 AM
We let the engine and computer cool down, and then made a good run after the car's computer was able to learn the new airflow and fuel mixes. That run resulted in an astonishing 520.6 hp., and 490.5 lbs./ft.

What fuel mixes needed to be learned if no fuel trims were changed?
There is no way the car made those numbers with only "opening" the airbox. Other tuners and vendors have been working on getting the car morepower and opening the intake showed negligible gains without a tune or a pulley swap which would require a tune and the power would be much higher.

CIWS
04-08-09, 01:43 PM
There is no way the car made those numbers with only "opening" the airbox. Other tuners and vendors have been working on getting the car morepower and opening the intake showed negligible gains without a tune or a pulley swap which would require a tune and the power would be much higher.

As may be with other folks, but the car did produce those numbers on that day, on that dyno with somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 witnesses standing there the whole time watching all of the runs and anything the shop guys did while taking pictures and video. You may not believe it, or anyone else that wasn't there, but it does not change the fact it did indeed happen. It is what it is.

AJxtcman
04-08-09, 01:50 PM
As may be with other folks, but the car did produce those numbers on that day, on that dyno with somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 witnesses standing there the whole time watching all of the runs and anything the shop guys did while taking pictures and video. You may not believe it, or anyone else that wasn't there, but it does not change the fact it did indeed happen. It is what it is.

This is correct.

One thing you have to keep in mind. The guy running the dyno can adjust the correction factor. What was the number uncorrected? I know of other games that can be played to make artificial readings also.

CIWS
04-08-09, 02:24 PM
This is correct.

One thing you have to keep in mind. The guy running the dyno can adjust the correction factor. What was the number uncorrected? I know of other games that can be played to make artificial readings also.

This is working under the assumption the dyno operator has/had some ulterior motive to fluff the numbers. Besides the fact the shop owner is one of the witnesses standing there making sure things are being done correctly. No one had any intent to inflate or fubar the runs, it was simply a dyno day and that's the way the runs came out.

verbs
04-08-09, 05:43 PM
If the dyno is reading the "spike" at the end, did the engine not still make 520 in the "spike"? It seems to me that the dyno reads what the engine makes, and most people will claim the highest number. That being the case, at what point on the curve is where it should be read? Anything lower than max makes no sense.

Even if it made 511 "completely stock", 511 is what it made.



:histeric::histeric::histeric::histeric::histeric:



:nono::nono::nono::nono::nono::nono::nono::nono::n ono:


When a car on the dyno hits the redline, the dyno rollers slow down for a split second until the inertia of the rollers overtakes the motor, and then the rollers will speed up a bit to a speed a little bit lower than the speed before the rev limiter was hit. The quick decel accompanied by the subsequent feedback from the rollers overcoming the deceleration causes an abrupt...ARTIFICIAL spike at the end of the torque and hp curves as you see in the graphs above.

So no, the car doesn't make 511rwhp if the graph shoes 511rwhp. ;)

;)

gotapex
04-09-09, 12:17 AM
I don't understand how dynos can read numbers all over the place (save for dynos that are measuring different things, like one dyno reading the tires, while another is reading the axle, etc.).

All it is is a measurement of foot-pounds of torque at the wheels, nothing more. How can that be off (unless the dyno is "broken" and isn't really measuring foot pounds of torque)??? :confused::confused::confused:

"Well, with our dyno, your car is really pulling 90% of a foot pound of torque (per unit). It reads a little differently" :confused:

How does that make any sense??

Don't misinterpret--I easily understand how conditions, say, like weather, can influence what's actually being generated by the car at that moment in time, that's fine and dandy. What's confusing to me is how the dyno can read anything other than foot pounds of torque. In other words, assuming all other things equal (like weather conditions and such), how can different dynos read/generate different foot pounds of torque?

Here's a direct Dyno comparison. 1 car, driven from 1 dyno to the next to compare results:

http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0306tur_dynodash/

As you can see, dynos vary quite a bit... and that's from a far lower powered car than these CTS-V's. Heck, even two dynos from the same manufacturer gave different results.

The truth of the matter is, as long as the operator is competent and honest, chassis dyno machines are good at measuring relative changes in power (doing a baseline, doing a mod, then dynoing again to see hp change), but remain EXTREMELY POOR at measuring absolute power.

Here's another explanation (saying much the same):

http://www.raceprecision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=105

Anyhow, as a rule of thumb, Dynojets tend to read much higher than Mustang dynos, which in turn tend to read higher than DynoDynamics dynos. This is given the dynos were correctly set up, ambient conditions were entered into the calculations, strapping pressure is consistant, and no multiplying (correction) factor is applied, etc.

dannboss
04-09-09, 08:58 AM
Here's a direct Dyno comparison. 1 car, driven from 1 dyno to the next to compare results:

http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0306tur_dynodash/

As you can see, dynos vary quite a bit... and that's from a far lower powered car than these CTS-V's. Heck, even two dynos from the same manufacturer gave different results.

The truth of the matter is, as long as the operator is competent and honest, chassis dyno machines are good at measuring relative changes in power (doing a baseline, doing a mod, then dynoing again to see hp change), but remain EXTREMELY POOR at measuring absolute power.

Here's another explanation (saying much the same):

http://www.raceprecision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=105

Anyhow, as a rule of thumb, Dynojets tend to read much higher than Mustang dynos, which in turn tend to read higher than DynoDynamics dynos. This is given the dynos were correctly set up, ambient conditions were entered into the calculations, strapping pressure is consistant, and no multiplying (correction) factor is applied, etc.

I can't help but think that no matter the number, someone would have something to say about it being too low or too high or the correction factor was off or the operator wanted a higher number or it wasn't stock or it was lean or it was a redline spike or whatever. Being that we can all hopefully appreciate power and refinement, the 09 Vs can dyno stock at over 500 rwhp. That is all this post was about. Although, I have a feeling that number may be disputed somehow or another with hopefully a different excuse.

All these excuses considered, what "should" the rwhp be of an ls2 with headers, magnaflow, and a tune be? It was 373. If we are saying the 09 was "way off", the rest of them would have to be as well........right? So if the numbers for this car are right, the numbers for the rest should be spot on, including the 09.

Greg*
04-09-09, 02:02 PM
Spoke with Doug @ 21st Century Muscle Car about 09 V dyno runs. The last run was done w/ the airbox intact and pulled 511. The correction factor was adding about 6 hp. And made 508 hp with no spike. Bottom line this car was showing around 500 rwhp. I just wish a stock automatic V would have been present to compare the driveline loss between the two transmissions.

Luna.
04-09-09, 02:02 PM
Here's a direct Dyno comparison. 1 car, driven from 1 dyno to the next to compare results:

http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0306tur_dynodash/

As you can see, dynos vary quite a bit... and that's from a far lower powered car than these CTS-V's. Heck, even two dynos from the same manufacturer gave different results.

The truth of the matter is, as long as the operator is competent and honest, chassis dyno machines are good at measuring relative changes in power (doing a baseline, doing a mod, then dynoing again to see hp change), but remain EXTREMELY POOR at measuring absolute power.

Here's another explanation (saying much the same):

http://www.raceprecision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=105

Anyhow, as a rule of thumb, Dynojets tend to read much higher than Mustang dynos, which in turn tend to read higher than DynoDynamics dynos. This is given the dynos were correctly set up, ambient conditions were entered into the calculations, strapping pressure is consistant, and no multiplying (correction) factor is applied, etc.

Thanks for the articles, they were interesting.

Don't misunderstand, I know well that they DO read differently, I just get hung up in terms of WHY they read differently, all things as equal as possible. In my mind, a foot pound of torque is a foot pound of torque; how that can vary seems strange to me. I guess it's in the "estimation" process.

gotapex
04-09-09, 08:05 PM
I can't help but think that no matter the number, someone would have something to say about it being too low or too high or the correction factor was off or the operator wanted a higher number or it wasn't stock or it was lean or it was a redline spike or whatever. Being that we can all hopefully appreciate power and refinement, the 09 Vs can dyno stock at over 500 rwhp. That is all this post was about. Although, I have a feeling that number may be disputed somehow or another with hopefully a different excuse.

All these excuses considered, what "should" the rwhp be of an ls2 with headers, magnaflow, and a tune be? It was 373. If we are saying the 09 was "way off", the rest of them would have to be as well........right? So if the numbers for this car are right, the numbers for the rest should be spot on, including the 09.


It's not about excuses, it's about proper understanding what chassis dynos are and what they're good for. There's a lot of confusion about dyno numbers because of this point.

A chassis dyno is a great tool tool, but it's still a tool nevertheless, with strengths and weaknesses just like any other. Used correctly, they have great consistancy, but poor accuracy. Used incorrectly, the have poor consistancy & poor accuracy.

That's why it's so important to establish a baseline, then do all of your re-checking after mods at the same place, with the same operator.

The baseline number itself means nothing except to those who have no understanding of what a chassis dyno does.

CIWS
04-10-09, 07:38 AM
That's why it's so important to establish a baseline, then do all of your re-checking after mods at the same place, with the same operator.

Which is what this 09V owner, along with a few others there have done now. Made baseline runs at a place they can return to after any mods to see the changes. But the funny thing is several folks don't want to believe his car did that, that the dyno was too polite, or magic spells were cast, or something else is responsible vs just the car.
In any case he does have his numbers now and can see how things change. :)

atdeneve
04-10-09, 08:33 AM
Thanks for the articles, they were interesting.

Don't misunderstand, I know well that they DO read differently, I just get hung up in terms of WHY they read differently, all things as equal as possible. In my mind, a foot pound of torque is a foot pound of torque; how that can vary seems strange to me. I guess it's in the "estimation" process.

A foot pound of torque is a foot pound of torque. That doesn't vary. But, if you're measuring something indirectly, it's no surprise that there may be variation in the resulting measurement.

Luna.
04-10-09, 03:31 PM
A foot pound of torque is a foot pound of torque. That doesn't vary. But, if you're measuring something indirectly, it's no surprise that there may be variation in the resulting measurement.

The roller to the tire is a direct connection in my mind & represents actual torque/work performed, so it wouldn't be indirect from that perspective.

Unless I'm missing something, the only part it can be is the computer estimating the foot-pounds from the spinning of the roller. As a matter of fact, it pretty much has to be that; there's nothing else.

whisler151
04-10-09, 03:48 PM
I can't help but think that no matter the number, someone would have something to say about it being too low or too high or the correction factor was off or the operator wanted a higher number or it wasn't stock or it was lean or it was a redline spike or whatever. Being that we can all hopefully appreciate power and refinement, the 09 Vs can dyno stock at over 500 rwhp. That is all this post was about. Although, I have a feeling that number may be disputed somehow or another with hopefully a different excuse.

All these excuses considered, what "should" the rwhp be of an ls2 with headers, magnaflow, and a tune be? It was 373. If we are saying the 09 was "way off", the rest of them would have to be as well........right? So if the numbers for this car are right, the numbers for the rest should be spot on, including the 09.

Very true. Everyone at the dyno was right where they should be. Stock Vs were 330-340s, stock 09 Challenger SRT was 370, tuned STS-V was high 380s. There havent been many manual 09 Vs on the dyno so its hard for some to believe.

My dyno number was 363...not 373.

mafungu
05-04-09, 01:57 PM
2009 cts-v auto dyno run done on sunday may 3 2009

i cant post a link or pic yet but the car did 453.7hp and 453.1 max torque

on a dynojet

Razorecko
05-04-09, 03:10 PM
I just had my stock v dyno'd a couple days ago. Its a 6spd manual and i did three pulls. With the hood closed and not touching the airbox at all my highest power was 462hp & 501tq......on a mustang dyno. ;)

whisler151
05-04-09, 06:30 PM
2009 cts-v auto dyno run done on sunday may 3 2009

i cant post a link or pic yet but the car did 453.7hp and 453.1 max torque

on a dynojet

6sp manuals are putting down a lot more. All i've seen are 490 or higher. Except for Razorecko, but his tq was in the 500's.

Razorecko
05-04-09, 08:15 PM
6sp manuals are putting down a lot more. All i've seen are 490 or higher. Except for Razorecko, but his tq was in the 500's.

Thats why i have a dynojet scheduled for a couple weeks. Gonna do a run on the dynojet in a couple weeks

whisler151
05-04-09, 09:26 PM
Thats why i have a dynojet scheduled for a couple weeks. Gonna do a run on the dynojet in a couple weeks

Looking forward to seeing your results. Any idea why your hp and tq numbers were so far apart? I believe the 501tq, but 462hp seems low for M6 V2. Not talking crap...my V only puts down 363hp. :nono:

Buzduz74
05-05-09, 10:22 AM
With every pull the 09 V pulled more and more. They messed with the air box a bit to get the higher numbers. Would have liked to had a few other 09 Vs there to verify the numbers. The dyno was pulling very reasonable numbers all the way across. 12 Vs got their turn and all were right around where they should have been.
Will have my 1500 mile 6 speed on dyno Thursday May 7th. Downloaded software last night off computer.
Stay tuned

Razorecko
05-05-09, 10:49 AM
Thats why I want to dynojet. That 46x hp throws me off a little

Luna.
05-05-09, 02:05 PM
6sp manuals are putting down a lot more. All i've seen are 490 or higher. Except for Razorecko, but his tq was in the 500's.

Well, I was at ~470 rwhp prior to tune and am at 520 after tune.

I'm in CA, where gas sucks, so I would expect some out of state people to get a little higher, as they can get a little more aggressive on timing.

Pulley, headers, and a Corsa later, I'm hoping to be at, say, 570+ though... :bouncy:

NeedCTS-v
05-05-09, 02:15 PM
Well, I was at ~470 rwhp prior to tune and am at 520 after tune.

I'm in CA, where gas sucks, so I would expect some out of state people to get a little higher, as they can get a little more aggressive on timing.

Pulley, headers, and a Corsa later, I'm hoping to be at, say, 570+ though... :bouncy:

Luna,

Are you manual or auto?

Thanks!

Luna.
05-05-09, 02:23 PM
Luna,

Are you manual or auto?

Thanks!

Manual

Razorecko
05-05-09, 02:29 PM
there is a decent sized difference in #'s between the auto and manual. Maybe thats why the auto has more aggressive gearing, to make up for the difference.

mafungu
05-06-09, 01:11 AM
All i know is that i was very pleased with the 453rwhp... as i was at a viper and corvette dyno day at a local shop and most of the viper guys were amazed at the numbers and a 2008 Z06 put down 455 rwhp:cool2:

NeedCTS-v
05-06-09, 01:47 AM
All i know is that i was very pleased with the 453rwhp... as i was at a viper and corvette dyno day at a local shop and most of the viper guys were amazed at the numbers and a 2008 Z06 put down 455 rwhp:cool2:

Wouldn't you be somewhat concerned that you were putting down less than a car rated for 505hp given that your car is rated for 556?

Razorecko
05-06-09, 11:25 AM
Wouldn't you be somewhat concerned that you were putting down less than a car rated for 505hp given that your car is rated for 556?

^ you gotta think though that his V was an auto and the Z was a stick. Thats the difference.

NeedCTS-v
05-06-09, 01:39 PM
^ you gotta think though that his V was an auto and the Z was a stick. Thats the difference.

I guess, but it still seems like a "lot" of drive train loss from the stick to the auto to me. I'd almost suspect that the actual gearing may have something to do with it.

I know that a bunch of the Z06 guys were losing power on the dyno when they'd go to a shorter gear. The car was quicker but would dyno quite a bit less.

Buzduz74
05-07-09, 03:53 PM
Just came off the dyno in South Fl. Corsa exhaust only. 488 HP 455 TQ Pulled top of air cleaner 525 HP Some flashing produced 501 hp 493 TQ. Intercooler at 110 deg produced a loss of 18 hp so the car like to be cooler. I am looking into a new air intake as 35 HP increase if FABO.
Looks like GM did a nice job with the ECU as I am not sure other than intake how much more is left. Big increase in TQ
Buzz

2009 CTS-V 6 speed trans

whisler151
05-07-09, 04:29 PM
Just came off the dyno in South Fl. Corsa exhaust only. 488 HP 455 TQ Pulled top of air cleaner 525 HP Some flashing produced 501 hp 493 TQ. Intercooler at 110 deg produced a loss of 18 hp so the car like to be cooler. I am looking into a new air intake as 35 HP increase if FABO.
Looks like GM did a nice job with the ECU as I am not sure other than intake how much more is left. Big increase in TQ
Buzz

2009 CTS-V 6 speed trans

So you hit 525rwhp with stock tune just by taking the cover of the air intake off?

Buzduz74
05-10-09, 05:17 PM
Yes The car pulled 525hp with the lid off. Appears the air cleaner is VERY restricted. I am going to put a K&N cone filter in the box.
I watched in amazement. I been racing cars for 50 years and never saw that much improvement.
Buzz

4gear70
05-10-09, 08:48 PM
I guess, but it still seems like a "lot" of drive train loss from the stick to the auto to me. I'd almost suspect that the actual gearing may have something to do with it.

I know that a bunch of the Z06 guys were losing power on the dyno when they'd go to a shorter gear. The car was quicker but would dyno quite a bit less.

Dyno runs are typically made in the final drive ratio of 1:1. So usually 4th in most modern trannys. The loss that is typically seen in an Automatic is that the torque converter is not fully (100%) locked up and there is some constant amount of slippage (and therefore power loss). I'm not sure if a Lock-up converter is used in these cars and at WOT.
The MT has a clutch that is completely (or should be) engaged and conected to the rest of the drive line.
So in an AT car you'll have slightly higher RPMs at a given speed than a MT car, all other things being equal of course.

Luna.
05-11-09, 01:55 PM
Dyno runs are typically made in the final drive ratio of 1:1. So usually 4th in most modern trannys. The loss that is typically seen in an Automatic is that the torque converter is not fully (100%) locked up and there is some constant amount of slippage (and therefore power loss). I'm not sure if a Lock-up converter is used in these cars and at WOT.
The MT has a clutch that is completely (or should be) engaged and conected to the rest of the drive line.
So in an AT car you'll have slightly higher RPMs at a given speed than a MT car, all other things being equal of course.

The power loss is one of the exact reasons why I remain confused as to how the auto can be as fast as a manual, to say nothing about the additional weight (all other things as equal as possible). Because it's geared better? Now why on earth would they gear an auto better than the manual?? Very strange... :confused:

Razorecko
05-11-09, 03:27 PM
If they didnt gear it you def would feel the 50-60hp difference

4gear70
05-11-09, 03:38 PM
The power loss is one of the exact reasons why I remain confused as to how the auto can be as fast as a manual, to say nothing about the additional weight (all other things as equal as possible). Because it's geared better? Now why on earth would they gear an auto better than the manual?? Very strange... :confused:

Quicker or Faster... Autos are typically quicker (all other things being equal) but Manuals generally faster. The Auto tranny has the advantage of torque multiplication and on this car has a 4.02 1st gear (with a 3.23 rear) for an approx 13:1 ratio. The MT has a 2.66 1st (with a 3.73 rear) for an approx 9.9:1 ratio. The Auto will technically launch better and show quicker times.
With a better launch, every tenth in the 60ft should be at least a tenth to 1.5-2tenths quicker at the 1/4 (rough rule of thumb). However, due to torque converter slippage (power loss), the MT should be faster with higher trap speeds (mph). Also, Autos will generally shift quicker unless you are a Manual gear god and thus shave off some additional precious time.
Now before anyone starts screaming about magazine reviews etc. The real way to test is having two identical weighed stock cars on the SAME day at the SAME track (track conditions and Roll Out) under the SAME conditions (temp, humidity, elevation, wind etc.).
Trap speeds are generally a rough idea as to how much HP a car is putting down... even on a bad launch or 60ft, the mph at 1/4 is generally the same.
You want to go quicker and faster? Lose weight and get that power to the ground (sticky tires/slicks). Rough rule of thumb is that for every 100 lbs shaved, you save a tenth and gain a mile/hour.
I love these cars in both forms (AT and MT), but I chose MT for the fun I have driving it! :)

silver sts-v
05-14-12, 09:35 PM
A dynojet 248 is 100% free of tampering by the operator. Essentially you chose one of three things: SAE corrected (most relevant), corrected or real time data. There is nothing the operator can do to change the numbers which is not the case with other units.

I know as I almost bought a dyno in conjunction with an NHRA drag strip. After going over all the data Dynojet was the only 'fool proof' unit available at the time.

V locity
05-17-12, 09:58 AM
This would be a strong "normal" pull.

Here is the link to my baseline dyno on a mustang:

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/2009-cadillac-cts-v-performance-mods/256234-baseline-mustang-dyno-bone-stock-2011-a.html

And I have an A6...

The OP was a MT & thats good for 20-30hp, plus it was on a dynojet which generally give higher #s than the mustang. Then they remove all intake restriction, very easy documented 20-30 HP add.

gOt BoOsT
05-22-12, 09:55 PM
if the manuals were doing pulls in 4th gear that explains the higher hp/tq. if in 3rd, then they are beasts.

smackdownCTSV
05-22-12, 10:22 PM
Hello 3 years later!

V locity
05-22-12, 11:58 PM
^^^lol