Final THRS project dyno numbers

[Hib Halverson]

About a month ago, I ran the Tom Henry RS project car on the chassis dyno for the last time in the process of writing the last article in the series.

Car ran pretty good for the modest mods I have, having 125,000 miles on the car, that it passes the hated California Smog Check and is driven daily.

244.9-hp@5750-rpm and 234.5lbs/ft@4700-rpm, SAE-corrected. That is just under 17-rwhp and 14-rwlb/ft torque more than we did in our last chassis dyno test in Part 5–a significant improvement. Using a .82 correction for driveline loss, that's about 299-hp and 280 lbs/ft, SAE, at the flywheel. Not bad for a 3.8-liter V6 which started at 200-hp.

Next I activated the nitrous oxide.

The car made 316.3 hp at the wheels at 5775-rpm and 325.8 lbs/ft at the wheels at 3630-rpm, SAE-corrected. Those numbers work out to 385-hp and 401 lbs/ft torque, SAE at the flywheel. A 75-shot indeed! Actually, it's an "85" shot and more than enough nitrous oxide for an engine with a stock pistons and rings.

We've got some brake mods to make and some more road testing to do and then we'll post Part 6 on the Camaro Homepage.

[2.8 Bird]

Re: Final THRS project dyno numbers

So that's a new article there. Did it ever come out of a Camaro mag? I have a camaro mag that features your car. I still read it from time to time.

Very impressive #'s considering that our engine only has a modest 9.4:1 compression ratio compare to the 3.6 11:1.

I think our stock cars handle better than the 5th gen. Plus when I drove it I wasn't too impress with the acceleration. It didn't feel like a 300hp car. I know the weight is a definite factor.

[WarShrike]

Re: Final THRS project dyno numbers

Nice numbers Hib. The higher TQ numbers on the spray reflects some of the others I've seen on the dyno running nitrous.

Car looks good, you're keeping it clean. I hope you have better luck from the QA1's than I did. I really didn't like mine on the street, too much porpoising on some of the areas of town at speed. I tried a wide variety of settings but just couldn't get the damping dialed in. Swapped them out for the Strano/Koni combo and haven't looked back.

Very impressive #'s considering that our engine only has a modest 9.4:1 compression ratio compare to the 3.6 11:1.

Biggest factor there is direct injection. You can run a lot higher compression ratio than you would with a standard fuel injection setup.

I think our stock cars handle better than the 5th gen. Plus when I drove it I wasn't too impress with the acceleration. It didn't feel like a 300hp car. I know the weight is a definite factor.

The weight is a big factor, I'm hoping the manufacturers will start to trim these cars down. It's the easiest way now to improve performance and economy at the level they're at right now.

[nwilson44]

Re: Final THRS project dyno numbers

I feel out of the loop here. What mods are you running?

[ssms5411]

Re: Final THRS project dyno numbers

Nice #'s.

[Hib Halverson]

Re: Final THRS project dyno numbers

So that's a new article there. Did it ever come out of a Camaro mag? I have a camaro mag that features your car. I still read it from time to time.

The web-based series on the CHpg site is based on the magazine series done back in the '00s for "Camaro Performers" magazine, but is a lot more comprehensive. The article are, obviously, longer and the web series covers more subjects.

Very impressive #'s considering that our engine only has a modest 9.4:1 compression ratio compare to the 3.6 11:1.

Thanks

I think our stock cars handle better than the 5th gen. Plus when I drove it I wasn't too impress with the acceleration. It didn't feel like a 300hp car. I know the weight is a definite factor.

Well, the only thing that never stops marching is the march of technology. The only 5gen I've driven is a ZL1 and it kicks ***. In acceleration for sure and in handing.

That said, the base V6 5G Camaro is ok, but the one big feature the 4Gen cars have as an advantage is weight. The new Camaro is a very heavy car for a sports coupe.

A fourth gen F-car with only 290-300 hp is likely going to beat a new Camaro with 323.

[Hib Halverson]

Re: Final THRS project dyno numbers

Nice numbers Hib. The higher TQ numbers on the spray reflects some of the others I've seen on the dyno running nitrous.

Can't explain the higher torque. It is what it is, I guess. My numbers are conservative because I correct to SAE not "Standard"

Car looks good, you're keeping it clean. I hope you have better luck from the QA1's than I did. I really didn't like mine on the street, too much porpoising on some of the areas of town at speed. I tried a wide variety of settings but just couldn't get the damping dialed in. Swapped them out for the Strano/Koni combo and haven't looked back.

Well, I think having double adjustables is the way to go. Were your single or double adjustable. There might be some of the other stuff I've done, like spring rates and my Global West TractionLink that make a difference.

Biggest factor there is direct injection. You can run a lot higher compression ratio than you would with a standard fuel injection setup.

GDI is one factor but also, the 3.6 is aluminum, has a better combustion chamber and more modern engine controls are the other reasons they can get away with the higher CR.

[Hib Halverson]

Re: Final THRS project dyno numbers

I feel out of the loop here. What mods are you running?

The short list.

COMP Cam and lifters
DeGroff ported/polished heads and multiangle valve job
Larger valves from Manley
Shorty headers w. 3" Magnaflow cat and 3" Flowmaster exhaust back to the muff 2x2.5 tailpipes
Yella Terra rockers
Katech valve springs and Ti retainers
Extrude honed manifold and plenum
RC Engineering 240cc/m injectors w Racetronix adapter harnesses
MSD coils and plug wires
Denso IT-20 plugs
Whisper Lid, Green Filter and SS ram air hood
Fluidyne Radiator w. 170 'stat
Racetronix fuel pump
Red Line 10W30 engine oil
my own custom tuning
Nitrous Supply dry N2O system.

Deatails are in the series on the Camaro Homepage.

[ssms5411]

Re: Final THRS project dyno numbers

I like my QA-1's, there the single adjustable. I like them because I can adjust the ride height and firmness, haven't really driven through some twisties so I don't know how they would handle but for the street they've been great so far and thats with a 300lb spring setup. But having a tubular K and A arms its much lighter in the front.

[Hib Halverson]

Re: Final THRS project dyno numbers

I like my QA-1's, there the single adjustable. I like them because I can adjust the ride height and firmness, haven't really driven through some twisties so I don't know how they would handle but for the street they've been great so far and thats with a 300lb spring setup. But having a tubular K and A arms its much lighter in the front.

For the type of driving we do, it's tough not to have double adjustables. Being able to adjust rebound and compression allows us to 1) have a track and a street damping set-up. Also, it allows us to adjust shock valving for the type of track/road. Let say, we going to run on a smooth surface, we can dial in more shock valving than we would for a undulating surface.

The tubular front cradle and A-arms, did you weight them and the stock parts? I'd like to know the weight difference.

[ssms5411]

Re: Final THRS project dyno numbers

No didn't weigh the old vs. the new, but I know it was atleast more than 60-70lb. difference. The upper A-arms there wasn't too much of a difference if any though. The QA-1 coilovers are lighter than stock too.

[WarShrike]

Re: Final THRS project dyno numbers

[QUOTE=Hib Halverson;1043282]Can't explain the higher torque. It is what it is, I guess. My numbers are conservative because I correct to SAE not "Standard"[\QUOTE]

That's fine with the SAE corrections. I'd rather see corrected outputs anyway.

Well, I think having double adjustables is the way to go. Were your single or double adjustable. There might be some of the other stuff I've done, like spring rates and my Global West TractionLink that make a difference.

Yeah, they were singles. They were an improvement over the 120K mile old Decarbons and stock springs, but they were still lacking. The porpoising effect was mainly because of poor damping.

I had an end goal of eventually buying the Strano/Koni setup and somebody wanted to buy my QA1's with the BMR front bar, the opportunity presented itself so I went with it. They were running the sport springs, not the drag springs as well. I was moving away from the drag racing game anyway at that time as I was doing the T-56 swap.

I've got other mods to the suspension, still have yet to do anything with the torque arm except run the relocation cross member to get the TA off the tailshaft of the trans. Might go with an unbalanced engineering torque arm later on with a Watts link to replace the adjustable PHB.

I need to roll the fenders first and foremost. I'm getting a little rub from the very steep driveways here that I have to access in the firebird. Only started after I had subframe connectors welded in, it's amazing how much this car flexed before!

I can lift the front and rear tires on one side now!

[Hib Halverson]

Re: Final THRS project dyno numbers

I don't know your goals with suspension mods but if it's improved handling and better bite off turns, with the rear suspension, take a look at Global West's TracLink system.

That and constant rate rear springs made my 01 a totally different car when I accelerate off turns.

The system is a little pricey and is a "kinda-sorta" bolt on. I say that because you have to drill a few holes to mount it.

We used Global's TC23. You can see how we installed it by clicking here and then, also, here