Can Someone Post a Dyno Comparison C5Z vs. C6Z?

[jrz1]

Be curious to see the curves posted on same chart for comparison purposes.

[Andi]

Originally Posted by jrz1

Be curious to see the curves posted on same chart for comparison purposes.

[jrz1]

Thanks, that's awesome. Looking at the graphs, I'm a little surprised variance in HP & particularly torque is not larget at the lower RPM range. Don't get me wrong, I'll take it but I thought bumping things by 1.3L plus all the other enhancements would have resulted in a bigger gap down low. Clearly > 4.5-5.0K RMP it's a huge leap.

[Man 'O War]

I wonder if a C5 Z06 with H/C & gears would be an even match for a stock C6 Z06. Any ideas?

[IT L GO]

Originally Posted by Man 'O War

I wonder if a C5 Z06 with H/C & gears would be an even match for a stock C6 Z06. Any ideas?

IMO that would be drivers race

[SRV]

Originally Posted by jrz1

Thanks, that's awesome. Looking at the graphs, I'm a little surprised variance in HP & particularly torque is not larget at the lower RPM range.

Agreed.

Don't get me wrong, I'll take it but I thought bumping things by 1.3L plus all the other enhancements would have resulted in a bigger gap down low. Clearly > 4.5-5.0K RMP it's a huge leap.

I'm sure GM did that on purpose as the C5Z already has more than enough low-end since traction is a problem in 1st and 2nd gear.

Now add an additional 1.3L (..all else being equal) and the problem is made much worse, acceleration suffers, and not to mention shortened tire-life.

The solution is to move the new-found power to where it can be utilized to accelerate the car with minimal melting of the rear-tires: up top. It appears GM did just that.