91 Octane?

[Simon_C]

I read this comparison of the GT500 against the C7 by Edmunds. Not a publication I usually take very seriously. http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/corvette-stingray/2014/comparison-test4.html
It is interesting that they gave the GT500’s 0 – 60 time as 4.1 seconds and the quarter mile time as 12.1. This is considerably slower than other reviewers are getting. If I recall correctly, one of the posters here ran 11.25 completely stock.
The other interesting point is that the 2014 GT500 posted a time of 1 minute 27.3 seconds around Streets of Willow Springs. It would seem that in spite of gaining 100 or so horsepower the same car is around 4 seconds slower than the 2010 model. Randy Pobst managed 1 minute 23.48 seconds. http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/willow_springs_-_streets_of_willow.html
From the article it seems that the GT500 was running on 91 octane: “on the same 91-octane gas”.
So unless Ray Charles or one of the Muppets was driving the GT500 it would seem that the GT500 loses significant power when run on anything less than premium.
Has anyone dyno’d the GT500 on 91 or otherwise know how much power it puts out or loses?

 

[Nomad 34]

Simon C,

I had my 2013 (4200 miles) on the dyno for the first time last week. On 91 octane (stock), max power/ torque readings were: 614.40hp/631.46tq. It was 79 degrees outside and these numbers were the lowest of two stock pulls. As you said, numerous reviewers have achieved better “stock” results than Edmunds. Compared with various owners’/reviewers data, Edmunds’ findings may seem to be the exception or an anomaly. However, there are many variables to consider that affect performance. For example, increased temp/humidity can lead to heat soak or cause factory installed safeguards to reduce power.

The same day of dyno testing I had Revan Racing’s 13-6 kit (JLT CF 127mm intake, FRPP 65mm throttle body, and Lund tune) installed, and the output changed: 644.14/645.50. I assumed the numbers from the kit should have been substantially greater, but the ambient temperature had increased to 92 degrees and the car IAT was very high; thereby, affecting performance. In this case, I do not think the “GT500 loses significant power when run on anything less than premium.” This is my first post on SVTPerformance.com; so make of it what you will. I am sure there are far more knowledgeable members that can help add to the discussion.


- Nomad 34

 

[Lethalchem]

Simon C,

I had my 2013 (4200 miles) on the dyno for the first time last week. On 91 octane (stock), max power/ torque readings were: 614.40hp/631.46tq. It was 79 degrees outside and these numbers were the lowest of two stock pulls. As you said, numerous reviewers have achieved better “stock” results than Edmunds. Compared with various owners’/reviewers data, Edmunds’ findings may seem to be the exception or an anomaly. However, there are many variables to consider that affect performance. For example, increased temp/humidity can lead to heat soak or cause factory installed safeguards to reduce power.

The same day of dyno testing I had Revan Racing’s 13-6 kit (JLT CF 127mm intake, FRPP 65mm throttle body, and Lund tune) installed, and the output changed: 644.14/645.50. I assumed the numbers from the kit should have been substantially greater, but the ambient temperature had increased to 92 degrees and the car IAT was very high; thereby, affecting performance. In this case, I do not think the “GT500 loses significant power when run on anything less than premium.” This is my first post on SVTPerformance.com; so make of it what you will. I am sure there are far more knowledgeable members that can help add to the discussion.


- Nomad 34

Your stock numbers were great but yeah, I was surprised to see your modded results as well.

 

[NELCO]

Simon C,

I had my 2013 (4200 miles) on the dyno for the first time last week. On 91 octane (stock), max power/ torque readings were: 614.40hp/631.46tq. It was 79 degrees outside and these numbers were the lowest of two stock pulls. As you said, numerous reviewers have achieved better “stock” results than Edmunds. Compared with various owners’/reviewers data, Edmunds’ findings may seem to be the exception or an anomaly. However, there are many variables to consider that affect performance. For example, increased temp/humidity can lead to heat soak or cause factory installed safeguards to reduce power.

The same day of dyno testing I had Revan Racing’s 13-6 kit (JLT CF 127mm intake, FRPP 65mm throttle body, and Lund tune) installed, and the output changed: 644.14/645.50. I assumed the numbers from the kit should have been substantially greater, but the ambient temperature had increased to 92 degrees and the car IAT was very high; thereby, affecting performance. In this case, I do not think the “GT500 loses significant power when run on anything less than premium.” This is my first post on SVTPerformance.com; so make of it what you will. I am sure there are far more knowledgeable members that can help add to the discussion.


- Nomad 34

The 13-6 kit from Van gave me 680 RWHP, Heat will kill your horsepower with the stock intercooler because the car has to be moving or the dyno guys have to have a huge blower cooling the intercooler. High air temps will kill power, Heat Soak is gonna kill any car not moving. Trick is install
Van's dual fan intercooler ......................It Work's..................The 11 Inch fans pull so much air and the heat exchanger has almost a third more rows of cooling....................

Nelco:beer::beer:

 

[Lethalchem]

The 13-6 kit from Van gave me 680 RWHP, Heat will kill your horsepower with the stock intercooler because the car has to be moving or the dyno guys have to have a huge blower cooling the intercooler. High air temps will kill power, Heat Soak is gonna kill any car not moving. Trick is install
Van's dual fan intercooler ......................It Work's..................The 11 Inch fans pull so much air and the heat exchanger has almost a third more rows of cooling....................

Nelco:beer::beer:

Except plenty of other people have had good results above his without using a HE upgrade. Not bashing the product, just didn't want the guy to think that's why he didn't hit the numbers other people have.

 

[NELCO]

Except plenty of other people have had good results above his without using a HE upgrade. Not bashing the product, just didn't want the guy to think that's why he didn't hit the numbers other people have.

I totally agree, Just making a point. As heat builds up these cars lose HP, Dyno is great for a baseline.

Nelco