Interesting. If I apply the normalized drive line loss factor of 14.3% derived from the 1st car (Netjunkie), to the last (Rwdyryd), and both cars are stock, then these cars differ (mathematically), as follows.
At normalized loss factor of 14.3%:
Netjunkie's LS6 @ 3k miles = 385 hp
Rwdyryd's LS6 @ 2k miles = 397 hp
Another way to look at the same comparison, is to derive the loss factor in the opposite way. By so doing, then the "normalized" loss factor becomes 11.6%, a more conservative figure, and perhaps more realistic.
At normalized loss factor of 11.6%:
Netjunkie's LS6 @ 3k miles = 373 hp
Rwdyryd's LS6 @ 2k miles = 385 hp
Another approach would be to average the two calculated loss factors which results in 13%.
(Some people believe the loss factor is as high as 16 or 17%). Then the comparison between these two cars becomes:
Netjunkie's LS6 @ 3k miles = 379 hp Rwdyryd's LS6 @ 2k miles = 390 hp
Applying a 13% (average) LF to a corrected dyno measurement of 335rwhp equates to 385hp at the flywheel. A lot of the numbers we have seen posted on this board higher than
that are from "modified" cars.
However, an essential piece of information that could help to explain differences in dyno measurements of stock Z06s is missing and poorly compensated for by the dyno measurement system. It is internal engine operating temp at the time of each test. A good approximation of this temp is the coolant or oil temp in the block. What the dyno instrumentation monitors and factors into its compensation algorithm is the OAT. This is "roughly" equivalent to the MAT, which is somewhat pre-heated to a higher temperature which the dyno cannot accurately determine.
What all this is getting at is the relative importance of doing dyno testing at a "controlled" or nominal engine operating temp. Then, for comparison purposes, either for the same car that is subsequently modified, or between cars that are 100%stock, Dynojet measurements in terms of peak values are more relavent.
