# 06 GTO Dyno



## whitelazer1 (Apr 29, 2009)

well ive had my 06 gto 6 speed for 2 weeks now....and i have done some stuff to it pacesetter long tube headers, magnaflow cat-back, slp harmonic balancer, k&n filter with cut air box, and a diablo....i dynoed the car today and it made 423 to the ground and 374 torque....this was done on a mustang dyno also...what do you guys think of these numbers...do they seam right?:willy:


----------



## thebassbass (Feb 4, 2009)

whitelazer1 said:


> well ive had my 06 gto 6 speed for 2 weeks now....and i have done some stuff to it pacesetter long tube headers, magnaflow cat-back, slp harmonic balancer, k&n filter with cut air box, and a diablo....i dynoed the car today and it made 423 to the ground and 374 torque....this was done on a mustang dyno also...what do you guys think of these numbers...do they seam right?:willy:


they seem about 50hp to high. sorry but i am going to have to call BS


----------



## whitelazer1 (Apr 29, 2009)

ummm i have the dyno sheet in my car....i can try and scan maybe tomorrow...


----------



## WanaGTO (Sep 7, 2008)

those numbers are def 50hp too high. Forgiving dyno. You aren't making that much to the wheels.


----------



## whitelazer1 (Apr 29, 2009)

So these cars make about 375 to the wheels with those mods then? my understanding i always thought mustang dynos were harder to make horsepower and torque pulls??? dont know if it makes a difference or not this was on a custom tune?


----------



## LOWET (Oct 21, 2007)

whitelazer1 said:


> well ive had my 06 gto 6 speed for 2 weeks now....and i have done some stuff to it pacesetter long tube headers, magnaflow cat-back, slp harmonic balancer, k&n filter with cut air box, and a diablo....i dynoed the car today and it made 423 to the ground and 374 torque....this was done on a mustang dyno also...what do you guys think of these numbers...do they seam right?:willy:


Mustang Dyno's read LOW. NO WAY will you make 423 RWHP on a Mustang Dyno with just a few bolt ons. You would need a cam, headers at the minimum added to your items to make 423 on a Mustang .Your numbers are WAY TOO HIGH to be realistic. 

K&N filter = about 5 HP ?
Pacesetters with tune = 12-20 HP ?
Magnaflow Cat Back= 10 ?
SLP = 5 ?
Your readings are about 60 + HP too high


----------



## 6QTS11OZ (Mar 27, 2005)

Those numbers are definitely too high even for a DynoJet or DynaPack let alone a Mustang dyno. Are you sure the previous owner didn't put a cam in it?


----------



## taz4141 (Nov 6, 2006)

no F...en way bud. i pull 498 HP with a s/c, cam, headers, exhaust, sweet blood and tier's. IS THIS APRIL FIRST OR SOMETHING. if your really pulling those number's ,and im not saying you didn't ...... there's more under the hood then just those , mod's ......


----------



## Aramz06 (Mar 2, 2008)

If you get another chance to dyno elsewhere I'd do that first before you even keep modding just to make sure where you really stand in the numbers.


----------



## whitelazer1 (Apr 29, 2009)

iam not sure if anyone else did anything to the car internally or not....ive only had it 2 weeks now....i put those parts on and then dynoed it....ill have to check around for another dyno iam not sure if there is another in the area here....ill try and get to my buddys house so i can aleast upload the dyno graph for you guys...i dont have a scanner...


----------



## SANDU002 (Oct 13, 2004)

I would not believe your dyno readings just b/c of the difference in hp versus torque. I don't care how much hp you make, you get your power from torque.

When I only had the mods you mentioned, I was putting out 377/373 on a dynopack.


----------



## 6QTS11OZ (Mar 27, 2005)

whitelazer1 said:


> iam not sure if anyone else did anything to the car internally or not....ive only had it 2 weeks now....i put those parts on and then dynoed it....ill have to check around for another dyno iam not sure if there is another in the area here....ill try and get to my buddys house so i can aleast upload the dyno graph for you guys...i dont have a scanner...


Do like I did. Take a picture of the dyno sheet with your digital camera and download it to your computer.


----------



## taz4141 (Nov 6, 2006)

come to think of it. the torc seems low for the HP...............374 torc is respectable. the HP is wrong.


----------



## Cheezy1 (Apr 8, 2007)

with kooks headers,borla,1.8 ls7 rockers,a k&n fipk,and a slp 455 tune that ran rich on the dyno, I put down 347 on a mustang dyno.

a/f started at 10.9:1,and ended up at at 12.1:1 at the top end.

dyno operator guessed 10hp on the table running rich

This is a more accurate mustang dyno run.

Brian

06 M6


----------



## whitelazer1 (Apr 29, 2009)

here are some photos i took with my camera hope they come out....


----------



## thebassbass (Feb 4, 2009)

i was not saying you were lying. just that some thing was up with the dyno. it is just like some times at the track a time slip might say you cut a .7 sec 60' or had a trap speed of 700mph and only ran a 12.00. mabe post a video of the car if you don't know if it has a cam or not. but honestly to make 420+ hp on a mustang would take a far sized cam and would be notisable


----------



## DarrenCT (May 20, 2008)

yup...agree it's high.... I have very similar mods and put 391hp w/ 377 tq.... the real test is not the dyno, but the 1/4..... a "real" 423 hp would have you running low 12's @ 11x.xx traps dyno is off or you are def "cammed"......


----------



## taz4141 (Nov 6, 2006)

DarrenCT said:


> yup...agree it's high.... I have very similar mods and put 391hp w/ 377 tq.... the real test is not the dyno, but the 1/4..... a "real" 423 hp would have you running low 12's @ 11x.xx traps dyno is off or you are def "cammed"......


if there's a cam in this engine the torc numbers should be higher. somethings wrong with the dyno. 50 point spreed. seems to much. look at the hp torc spreed here 391hp w/ 377 tq 14 points ... mine is 25 points 498 hp over 524 torc (s/c) but my torc is higher than HP so im happy. it just seems that the torc and HP should be closer together for how these Ls2 run. regardless of mods. just my opinion


----------



## whitelazer1 (Apr 29, 2009)

i wish we had a 1/4 mile track around here the only thing we have is an 1/8th mile track witch i think sucks! maybe i can get some video of the car when the weather here gets a little better to much rain lately...


----------



## DarrenCT (May 20, 2008)

taz4141 said:


> if there's a cam in this engine the torc numbers should be higher. somethings wrong with the dyno. 50 point spreed. seems to much. look at the hp torc spreed here 391hp w/ 377 tq 14 points ... mine is 25 points 498 hp over 524 torc (s/c) but my torc is higher than HP so im happy. it just seems that the torc and HP should be closer together for how these Ls2 run. regardless of mods. just my opinion



:agreegood point... it does seem more characteristic of a different type of motor, not an ls2 (like a high revving euro motor high hp, and much lower tq) nice work on the higher tq #on yours, btw.... that must pull like none other :cool


----------



## taz4141 (Nov 6, 2006)

she runs 12.88 at a mile high I love it..... thanks for the complement.


----------



## LOWET (Oct 21, 2007)

whitelazer1 said:


> here are some photos i took with my camera hope they come out....




I think the Dyno needs to be recalibrated. Those numbers just don't seem right.


----------



## LILGTO (May 3, 2009)

Somebody has a big ass cam they don't know about.


----------



## 6QTS11OZ (Mar 27, 2005)

People, your argument about the hp versus the tq is completely wrong. It is not uncommon to have the tq lower than the hp by the difference that he has. Even a stock Z06 has what, 505hp/470tq (a difference of 35)? Now I agree with some that his numbers seem kinda high for his mods but the hp/tq difference need to be left out of the equation for validating his numbers. 

Anyway, check out this link and you'll see what I'm talking about. Regardless of the mods to the GTO's listed we need to pay close attention to the hp versus the tq. Some of the big boys have 100 lb. ft. of torque less than their hp.

LS1GTO.com Forums - Post up your RWHP and RWTQ numbers here.


----------



## LOWET (Oct 21, 2007)

6QTS11OZ said:


> People, your argument about the hp versus the tq is completely wrong. It is not uncommon to have the tq lower than the hp by the difference that he has. Even a stock Z06 has what, 505hp/470tq (a difference of 35)? Now I agree with some that his numbers seem kinda high for his mods but the hp/tq difference need to be left out of the equation for validating his numbers.
> 
> Anyway, check out this link and you'll see what I'm talking about. Regardless of the mods to the GTO's listed we need to pay close attention to the hp versus the tq. Some of the big boys have 100 lb. ft. of torque less than their hp.
> 
> LS1GTO.com Forums - Post up your RWHP and RWTQ numbers here.




You are correct. I have seen several cars with HP numbers that are 75+ HP higher then their TQ but that seems to happen on cars pushing very high numbers. A car with a few bolt ons and a TQ & HP difference of 50+ HP does seem odd. Maybe there is more in that engine then he thinks is there


----------



## 6QTS11OZ (Mar 27, 2005)

LOWET said:


> You are correct. I have seen several cars with HP numbers that are 75+ HP higher then their TQ but that seems to happen on cars pushing very high numbers. A car with a few bolt ons and a TQ & HP difference of 50+ HP does seem odd. *Maybe there is more in that engine then he thinks is there*


That's what I'm thinking. When you buy a used performance car you really don't know what is done to it. Especially if you buy it from a car lot and not the previous owner who will disclose all the info about it.


----------



## taz4141 (Nov 6, 2006)

for not having any internal parts add to the engine, we all think there is. the torc numbers should be closer. the more mods. .. i agree they could be anywhere. i like higher torc then horse. torc is where it's all at. however the gears my effect this number as well.higher gears will bring the torc down. but we are talking GTO LS 1 and 2 


that's a good question....how many different gears sets came out with gto's? i heard 2 but that's a horse (torc) of a different color now....


----------



## 6QTS11OZ (Mar 27, 2005)

taz4141 said:


> for not having any internal parts add to the engine, we all think there is. the torc numbers should be closer. the more mods. .. i agree they could be anywhere. i like higher torc then horse. torc is where it's all at. however the gears my effect this number as well.higher gears will bring the torc down. but we are talking GTO LS 1 and 2
> 
> 
> that's a good question....*how many different gears sets came out with gto's?* i heard 2 but that's a horse (torc) of a different color now....


3.46 only.


----------



## taz4141 (Nov 6, 2006)

6QTS11OZ said:


> 3.46 only.


that squashes that question. thanks for the info.


----------



## LOWET (Oct 21, 2007)

6QTS11OZ said:


> That's what I'm thinking. When you buy a used performance car you really don't know what is done to it. Especially if you buy it from a car lot and not the previous owner who will disclose all the info about it.


If his numbers are correct. There had to be some internal work done on that car. I have seen a few cars with a reverse split cam end up with numbers like that


----------



## whitelazer1 (Apr 29, 2009)

maybe i can get some video of the car for you guys to listen to it?....maybe you could tell??? iam not sure......sounds like i need to take it out and see if it does or not...i was thinking about ordering a cam for it.


----------

