Does anybody else see something funny about this?

[Fuelie Fan]

In the latest CHP, they did some testing on a LS6 crate motor. As is the practice, they started with a baseline, and what did they get? 480ish hp from an engine rated at 405!! Then, they went on to try and justify how that seems reasonable! "40 hp for different correction factors" and "40 hp for pulling all the accessories". THe final combo weighed in at around 530hp.

I think this is a crummy way of trying to make a 50hp gain look like a 125hp gain, personally. I'm more disillusioned with these magazines (really less magazine and more extended advertisement) every day.

Am I the only person that doesn't think I can trust a single hp number from any of their articles, since they insist on running open collector, electric water pumps, no accessories, and bogus corrections?

I'm not sure how long they've been pulling this stuff, but I'm wondering if this helps explain how a decent streetable gen1 350 5 years ago was 300-350hp, but now is 400-450hp. I know technology has improved things, but I also know that people have been racing small blocks for 50 years, and the huge jumps in power numbers recently have me wondering how much is real and how much is advertisement fudging. Or maybe people are just loosening their definition of streetable. I know a lot of mustang guys were pretty pissed off recently when they came to our dyno expecting 300 rwhp and only made 200...all I could say was don't shoot the messenger!

The real solution: More racing! We need more run-whatcha-brung events at the local strips!

Anyways, just thought I'd rant a little (not even sure if this is an engines discussion or open forum)



Andy

[shmoov69]

I love watching all the punks that think that thier car is going to make some huge amounts of power because of all the "bolt on" 15-50hp gains! Lets see here, 5 bolt ons that make 20hp each......WOW!! I just gained a hundred hp!! :bsjerk: Then they get all pissed off and say the dyno place sucks and is inaccurate and so on. 500 rwhp is a friggin load of power on a street car!

[Steve1968LS2]

I love watching all the punks that think that thier car is going to make some huge amounts of power because of all the "bolt on" 15-50hp gains! Lets see here, 5 bolt ons that make 20hp each......WOW!! I just gained a hundred hp!! :bsjerk: Then they get all pissed off and say the dyno place sucks and is inaccurate and so on. 500 rwhp is a friggin load of power on a street car!

Yea.. If I put on a lid worth 15hp.. and a bellows worth 5hp.. and headers worth 70hp and a new filter worth 15hp then I should get 105hp right???? :rofl:

It is called the law of diminishing return.. It is also called creative marketing..

Oh wait, Im one of them evil magazine guys.. Forget what I just said.. ;)

BTW.. I can't tell you how many cars Ive seen with HUGE dyno number and sorry arse track times.

[rancherlee]

typical accessory drive uses 30-50hp depending on the accessorys.
Pre-73 engines were rated without the accessory drive, GROSS HP
The 480ish HP they dynoed was GROSS hp, not like the current NET. I agree the power gains they noticed should have been compaired to they Gross baseline dyno though.

[Zefhix]

That's cool...on the cover of this months CHP, they have a car purging a nitrous system but.......oops...there's unplugged bungs welded into every single intake runner. Guess they didn't plan on going very far?

[Upper Performance]

I find most magazines nowadays suck, theyre just marketing tools for corporations.

I miss the OLD Car Craft, you know? When they did all the budget build ups? Those were cool.......

[StRacerDuke]

I've found that CHP was one of the worst for 'magazine numbers' quotes and claims that just didn't make since. Then again, the last time I read it was about 2 years ago...

[ItsA68]

EVERY time I read CHP I find at least two or three technical errors. Blatent mistakes that any editor should not miss. For instance, open the front cover of your April 05 issue. Page 21 has a great article about "DFI for the Masses", "Taking a closer look at Accel's Gen VIII" I got all excited, and thought that Accel had created the next generation of their EFI system. Of course, when you actually turn to page 21, the article is about the GenVII system. I have seen many errors like this for so long that I almost canceled my subscription. I remember another that referenced the Dart Little M block as having a tall deck, and a raised cam. (of course we all know its the Iron Eagle block that has these features) I sometimes wonder if any of the guys writing this stuff have actually ever bought parts, and built a motor.

I think that the trick is that they need to get the whole issue finished in time to let it sit for a few days before they proof read it all, and do the final edit. If you are emersed in a paper, or in this case a magazine, and have been working on it every day for 3 weeks, there's no way to catch errors unless you put it down for some time.

I think it is best to read the mags for entertainment, and ideas, and do your own reasearch about the specifics. It would be a disaster to rely on info from a magazine soley to complete a project.

~~fred

[EFI69Cam]

EVERY time I read CHP I find at least two or three technical errors. Blatent mistakes that any editor should not miss. For instance, open the front cover of your April 05 issue. Page 21 has a great article about "DFI for the Masses", "Taking a closer look at Accel's Gen VIII" I got all excited, and thought that Accel had created the next generation of their EFI system. Of course, when you actually turn to page 21, the article is about the GenVII system. I have seen many errors like this for so long that I almost canceled my subscription. I remember another that referenced the Dart Little M block as having a tall deck, and a raised cam. (of course we all know its the Iron Eagle block that has these features) I sometimes wonder if any of the guys writing this stuff have actually ever bought parts, and built a motor.

I think that the trick is that they need to get the whole issue finished in time to let it sit for a few days before they proof read it all, and do the final edit. If you are emersed in a paper, or in this case a magazine, and have been working on it every day for 3 weeks, there's no way to catch errors unless you put it down for some time.

I think it is best to read the mags for entertainment, and ideas, and do your own reasearch about the specifics. It would be a disaster to rely on info from a magazine soley to complete a project.

~~fred

And all that article on the Gen VII is is a freaking verbatim regurgitation of the info from MR gaskets web site and brocures. I was hoping for some good info on tuning. They rehash the Holley tuning every other month though.

Seems that magazine has gone to hell since Jeff Smith left.