2020 C8 CORVETTE on the DYNO! WAY higher horsepower and torque than GM is reporting!!

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

What do you guys think of these crazy C8 Corvette dyno numbers? This car might just be a bigger beast than we originally thought. 🤔

[@cindysue5474]

Yes but that 15% I can understand if it had a drive shaft but this is going through short half shafts so would it not be less then 15%?

[@bookorder7857]

@@TheDamonsta but I think that's nothing to them. If hennessy and vengeance can push corvette hp to 1000+ gm could too.

[@lukeywalsh]

Pure speculation... - A few articles noted Chevy saying power to the wheel loss is under 15% because of the dual clutch - Did Chevy know MT was going to dyno the press car? - Some auto makers have fairly large discrepancies from publicized HP to actual. McClaren publicized numbers are often very close to wheel HP.

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

Close to wheel HP is one thing, but OVER wheel HP by 160?

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

GM has confirmed it's less than 15% but wouldn't give the actual number.

[@ryanyoshimura]

Hey should have just dyno’d a c7 to get a baseline of accuracy. If the c7 ran high too then they would know the dyno sucks

[@biggboysouth]

Yeah I'm leaning more towards a malfunction with the dyno. 650HP out of a NA motor isn't impossible but it's unlikely out of a stock engine. Would be awesome though, hopefully we are wrong.

[@hunterlogan2913]

Exactly or another dyno at different location ...

[@marcsmith3881]

@@saltyfloridaman7163 That's interesting. We will know the truth later so I hope they are not playing games.

[@marcsmith3881]

@@saltyfloridaman7163 It certainly demolishes it going straight. I chalk up the handling issues to inexperience. GM has very little experience with a rear mid engine car. The transmission went into the rear in 97 so they had essentially 17 years to get it right in the C7. You can't shift 10% of the weight or approximately 350 lbs to the rear and expect perfect handling. I think that is a bit unfair. Porsche had snap oversteer issues for years.

[@marcsmith3881]

We will find out if it is that easy.

[@tdalb8985]

As if I didn't want one enough already.

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

👍👍

[@Popdaddy88]

Corvette engineers: "So how much hp should we tune this for?" GM: "Yes".

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

🤣🤣🤣

[@acldachosen1]

😂🤣😂🤣🤣

[@behindthen0thing525]

Hilarious and original

[@waltershattenkirk3087]

Awesome!

[@AlexvrbX]

You've got that backwards. They gave the engineers a lot of free reign and well... GM execs: "How much horsepower are you planning on pushing out of the initial, naturally aspirated model?" Corvette engineers: "Is that... is that a question? I didn't hear a question."

[@vinniecorleone62]

I'm quite impressed, it's certainly not the first time Chevy has lowballed an iconic cars HP, definitely in my sights for a purchase.

[@Popdaddy88]

Turns out GM has a great poker face

[@135iN55]

GM can't claim both 650 HP and similar track times to the C7, or mid-engine is a bust.

[@Popdaddy88]

A bust? How about one of the great automotive bargains of all time? If it were exactly as advertised it would still be amazing; but even MORE hp? If that's a bust, however you want to measure it, then sign me up. Expectations met, and surpassed.

[@135iN55]

@@Popdaddy88 Fine, but you can't believe the tests and think mid-engine succeeded when +200 HP equals the C7 Stingray's lap time. For the record I don't believe any of the hype, GM is flat out lying to sell cars. Like $59,000 claim that turned into $80-90,000 for a well equipped base model. Like the "3300 lb dry" claim that turned into to 3700 as driven. Or the "under 3 sec" claim that turned out to be 4 in every released video. Or the 0.7 seconds faster around the track than a C7, but after dynoing the same sample 200 HP higher than the C7. Or insisting the 39% front end doesn't understeer with two pro-drivers in major wrecks already. It's all careful weasle words designed to lie without getting them sued and that is bad news for real world performance. The most likely reality is the added weight and out of whack weight distribution results in slightly worse performance than the lighter, perfect 50/50 of the C7. And how could any other outcome be reasonably expected when messing with a 60 year developed chassis for no reason other than wives tales of mid engine superiority, when no mid-engine places in the top 50 leader boards using an objective measuring device like Dragy? GM can't afford that press so they didn't allow it. They shouldn't have panicked when C7 sales plunged from 31,000/year to 12,000. Every sports car is in similar decline, or worse. We are witnessing the opening of Automotive Armageddon--it is not a Corvette problem.

[@Popdaddy88]

@@135iN55 let's say I spot you all of your concerns; I don't, mind you, but let's say I do. I still don't see a down side to this. I've owned a few exotics, and believe me, you are DEFINITELY getting hosed on what you're paying, vs what you're getting on a lot of them. A $30k ecu reflash, and lets call it a new model, for instance. Or let's strip out all the sound deadening, creature comforts, e.t.c. , and let's charge oh, an extra 50 grand, for less car. How about a car you don't dare jump start, but it kills the battery if you let it sit for more than a couple of days? Or a $7500 steering wheel replacement, because they won't sell you the easily dislodged manettino knob that you lost? And let's not even talk about depreciation, or waiting lists. I could go on and on, but I hope you get my point. Even at TWICE the $60k msrp, the C8 is fantastic value for money. I can't wait to get mine.

[@135iN55]

@@Popdaddy88 Ok I'll spot you right back everything you say is true. The C7 is still clearly a better value higher performing car than the C8, and that didn't capture the exotic market. The C8 is just a Chevy. Exotics are by definition not-GM. If the C7 couldn't do it, the pricier lower performance C8 sure can't. It was a dumb idea, they should have put the same investment into making the better C7 cheaper.

[@JesseEnclave]

This has to be user error on MT's part, or a busted dyno. No way in hell does the BASE car make 600+hp at the crank. And if it does, then it's the slowest 600+hp car on the market. Yeah, that 2.8sec 0-60 and the 11.1sec 1/4 mile are impressive, no doubt. But look at the trap speeds. Cars with over 600hp don't trap 124mph, especially if they pull as hard from a dig as the C8 does. If it's really making that much horsepower, it should be trapping well into the 130s. Not only that, but literally every review of the C8 out there says that, for the first time in a LONG time, the Corvette is more chassis than engine. From MT, to Car and Driver, to Road & Track, to the more independent publications and individuals right here on YT, they ALL say the C8 needs more power now that it's got the proper layout to put it to the ground. And then there was the C8 vs C7 shootout, where both were equipped with their Z51 packs and the C8 was a second quicker around the same track. Over a full second quicker is phenomenal with the rated power figures, since the C8's 35hp "advantage" is cancelled out by its increase weight, so it shows the improvements in the handling and transmission more than anything. But if the C8 was actually rocking a 150+hp advantage, along with everything else, and was ONLY 1 second faster, that doesn't paint the C8 in a good light at all. So yeah, MT's numbers have to be bogus and I have no idea why they're sitting there speculating about it. What they should've done was taken the 'Vette to another dyno altogether, or at least tested another car with a known power rating for that particular dyno as a control. I feel like MT's just trolling for views and are putting up clickbait while trying to frame it as a big mystery to keep the hype train going.

[@moiseslopez7898]

Jesse Enclave good to see someone in here with a brain 👍🏾

[@bonosimic532]

good thoughts ! but i think at this point it is safe to assume that the LT2 is indeed underrated, maybe not by as much as the MT dyno test has found, but still by some margin. I mean, after all the C8 has already been found to be capable of laying down spectatcular numbers.

[@Theyoufeelme]

This deserves an upvote

[@JesseEnclave]

@@bonosimic532 Oh, I have no doubt the engine puts out more power than it's rated for. Really, if you look at every performance car made in the last decade or so, I think you'd be hard pressed to find one that's NOT underrated from the factory. Everyone does it and most aren't even subtle about it anymore. BMW has been particularly ballsy about it. I think it was Car and Driver that had a Supra putting down more power at the wheels than it was rated for at the crank, and before that they had a BMW M5 that was doing the same. And I like that. It's the baker's dozen, the 13th treat in what's supposed to be a 12 pack. What I don't like his how MT is presenting it. It's not a ringer car, the C8 Stingray doesn't make 650hp from the factory, their dyno is clearly on the fritz, but here they are talking about how the SAE's tests produce lower numbers by nature and how they've been wracking their brains trying to make sense of the data. There's nothing to make sense of. The data is wrong either due to human error at some stage or faulty equipment, likely both. But instead of doing other tests with different equipment, they chose to act out Einstein's definition of insanity by doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. It's honestly baffling.

[@JesseEnclave]

@Commentor1 That's the thing: the ONLY place this supposed 600+hp shows up is on the dyno. Literally NONE of the actual testing reflects a car with that much power. The weight distribution, gearing and specifically tuned launch control explain the 0-60 and 1/4 mile numbers. But that trap speed? That's the dead giveaway.

[@adambrooks2297]

I believe GM did the same thing with the 70 LS6 454 Chevelle, they rated it lower than it really was,FOR INSURANCE PURPOSES!😎

[@demimoorestapeworm1416]

All I can say is I love the American Ferrari! The C8 is gorgeous!!!

[@markhamrick9078]

Corvette needs to be the standard of the performance world in every possible way AND at the most affordable! Way to go Chevy/GM!😎

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

😎👍

[@dobermanpac1064]

And the point is??? As a BowTie guy from birth, 7 decades ago, we’ve seen this behavior before, not surprised. Just buy one and feel the excitement ❤️

[@godsspeedify]

GM did this with the Chevelle and Corvettes 1969-1970. Hp power madness. They did this with the 1987 Grand nationals GM is notorious for underwriting horsepower... So what it's a win for the consumer and not the insurance companies.. if you're a true GM fan then you will know that general motors does this all the time nothing new, GM has a lot to prove with this C8 Corvette it's to beat Ferrari it's to beat Porsche and it's the catch the new generations eyes..

[@jamesanderson562]

You cant prove nothing over lies 😂 pathetic

[@TheTyphoon365]

Looks like it's broke just give it to me

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

🤣🤣

[@skip741x3]

Lets not complain about such things!

[@terryherrera5252]

Skip741 x My Insurance Co will bill me later ????😞

[@WoodLox]

Terry Herrera that’s the whole catch,. Pay less on insurance,,

[@WoodLox]

Terry Herrera that’s the whole catch,. Pay less on insurance,,

[@00ninja00]

Exactly, I don’t see the problem! Would we rather have rated at 490 but dyno at 290??!! Lol

[@leoncope6649]

I’m a ford guy buy heart;;; but this new corvette is beautiful :: I like the opportunity this vet has to offer it learns the road you go down every day it it remembers dips in the road there’s so many positives about this car ;; I like this car I would buy one ;; who ever buys one congratulations

[@Johnny53kgb-nsa]

Option 4 : GM intentionally kept the HP number low for insurance cost and the goofy government regulations. Which would translate to: Shhhh, don't tell anybody! Enjoy.

[@TheGozzila]

I’m not sure horsepower is government regulated, in North America at least.

[@AB-80X]

Do you know what it takes to make 650 in an LT1? It's not a 650 hp engine.

[@dantem306]

I’m liking this new trend of manufacturers sandbagging their numbers :)

[@kendyl814]

japan did it for years in the 9o's

[@jaytrock3217]

unless you are Ford and Dodge.

[@landychapman3]

If by new you mean 1960s... yup. Look up GM corporate anti-racing edict

[@refillz5281]

Nothing new, everybody has been doing it...

[@ricoreyonfire]

Better look for my insurance cost😂 way to go GM!

[@dr_racing7998]

Since the c8 Corvette is mid-engined, you would think little to no power is lost. 600 HP for a base model car like the 'Vette seems like too much.

[@sinformant]

The only difference would be that weight is more evenly balanced and you'd have better traction on the dyno. You will still have powertrain loss from the transmission/final drive

[@trblaze61]

Too much horsepower is an oxymoron

[@bookorder7857]

You're my favorite corvette youtuber. You're my boy blue!!!

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

lol thanks! Love the old school reference by the way!

[@rorodollars]

HorsePower Obsessed: GM cant under rate the engine by that much. Benz: hold my beer

[@g-ohgutierrez9466]

Vernard Pugh 🤣

[@Shrapnel-qy4xi]

Vernard Pugh What Benz car are you referencing?

[@rorodollars]

@@Shrapnel-qy4xi like damn near all real amgs, it's a known fact that benz highly under rates their engines.

[@TheMrJones1994]

Vernard Pugh Benz and Bmw have been doing it forever. They even lie about non amgs

[@robertatkins272]

This 👍 Same result when MT ran a E63 in Head to Head.

[@Mr2002s2k]

According to my power speed calculator a 3600 lb. car that does 11.1 in the 1/4 mile is producing 600 hp, I'm not sure if that is at the wheels or the crank.

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

Even if it's at the crank that's still a lot more than GM is saying this car makes!

[@tcroft2165]

unless its adjusting for FE/ME layout that won;'t be right.

[@adamc8409]

Ive heard that gm in the old days under rated hp by 80 plus to help with insurance rates etc

[@studio-flash]

2.8 seconds 0-60mph..and 650hp..wow!! With the design looks..1000 auto lift via gps. The best Bose hi-fi ..beautiful interior..best front of supercar out there...all for $60,000..how dare anyone criticise this awesome supercar that no other marque could or dare produce. Amazing car.

[@patriotsfan1236]

It's impossible for that engine to produce 650 crank horsepower in its current form.......... If you know the slightest about engines then you would know this. A 427 LS7 with cam heads full supporting mods can't make that power. There is some sort of testing discrepancy.

[@donaldparlettjr3295]

I'm a blue oval guy and I've gotta admit the C8 is one nice looking automobile

[@williebrown1974]

Dyno was broken. Mystery solved. Trap speeds are HP truth serum.

[@skip741x3]

True bro...the dyno can lie but trap speed does Not

[@KRGruner]

Yep.

[@thiosemicarbizidebenzoylal2921]

Sorry, but trap speeds can also indicate air flow at maximum R.P.M. Who says it wasn't making peak at 4k rpm? Its exhaust and intake at high rpm even on NA motors. I believe this to be the true hp of this motor and possibly higher with a exhaust and filter. Small blocks are devastating at the drag strip and why wouldn't you believe it.

[@quix99]

Willie Brown why wouldnt they be coherent? Gotta do alot of work on that junk tpi system to get anything out of it. Yank that shitty intake and put a stealth ram on it

[@thiosemicarbizidebenzoylal2921]

@@quix99 Sorry, but LT motors flow massive volumes of air and that's all we are talking about. These motors are simply legendary for putting huge numbers to the ground.

[@31186dan]

I appreciate the C8 updates. Keep it up!

[@xXJASONALLENXx]

Less hp loss from crank to wheels on mid engine cars.

[@motorhead7124]

I agree the mid engine design will have less loss than a comparable front engine layout.

[@erikcapozzi771]

Yeah but it doesnt explain the mass amount of difference when your wheel HP is 100 more then your listed crank power.

[@youtubecomments5951]

But it can’t make more wheel hp than crank. Stop using you ass as your mouth.

[@christianprusinski]

Yes but not to that percentage try again bud

[@ezgheib85]

The C8 value proposition just keeps getting better and better. What a revolutionary car this turned out to be.

[@Dodek72]

Do a test on another dyno.

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

Agreed.

[@twsmith6598]

This happened with the L88 which was supposed to be 450 in the street car and actually produced over 600.

[@terryforsythe8083]

From the Motor Trend article: “Chevy engineers also say that the drivetrain loss of a dual-clutch transmission, like the one in the Corvette, is less than 15 percent-but hesitated to give us an exact number (and even if it was zero loss, we still measured more wheel-horsepower than rated crank horsepower).”

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

Yup. I mentioned this in the video. 👍

[@loneponderer495]

possibility #3. GM accidently gave them the Z06 prototype to test and didn't want to admit the mistake.

[@stacydornan9765]

Giving new owners a wee bit of a surprise,nice gift from GM to New Vette owners

[@leedimatteo5078]

Big numbers, looks like the c8 is beyond badass!!

[@ttcookn8246]

Congrats on 20k subscribers !! Glad to see you growing👍

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

Thanks, man! 👍👍

[@lanceh9265]

I’m not seeing a problem, exposed a 160hp gap is like like finding the end of the rainbow.

[@jarod0406]

Or, Option 3: they've eliminated much more parasitic loss than anticipated.

[@g-ohgutierrez9466]

jarod0406 yes I agree 100% and even more being mid engine car now 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@WoodLox]

Jeovanni Gutierrez Ditto’

[@AndrewB383]

Now there's negative parasitic loss, much like the intestinal parasites in futurama, they give you superpowers

[@christianprusinski]

No try again

[@Vadimus1274]

@@g-ohgutierrez9466 There are several things to consider; many modern cars today, especially on the higher end, are more precise than before. BMW, for example, seems to dyno more @ the wheels than they advertise @ the crank. About the C8 being mid-engined, well, there's more to it than that; the engine, transmission, and the axle are bolted together more directly than in any other automobile.

[@bad_gtr7505]

Mid engine rear drive wouldnt be a 15 % DT loss, because of distance traveled. correct me if im wrong. either way still under rated engine.

[@tdalb8985]

Good thought, but I think the loses, tend to come from changing the direction of the torque. The differential, turns the torque 90 degrees. The missing weight of the driveshaft would be an influence, I'd think.

[@porschecollector727]

Why is it surprising that an engine can make 90hp/L in 2020. Cmon guys. Underrated horsepower for insurance, and to give room for the other models in the range. I personally felt it was underrated on the release day. That it was at least 80-100hp more at the crank.

[@Dom-wg1pk]

Reminds me of the terminator cobra they claimed 390 crank and the car was putting down like 420 to the wheels

[@scottwilson1251]

Or a LS1 which dyno anywhere from 305-320rwhp in a manual.

[@elviswon6895]

the track times they achieved represent a well hooking 500hp 3600lb. car. Mph is spot on....nuff said

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

Agreed.

[@WeirdBrick]

Than you Sir, the other comments are laughable!

“Nuff said” 🤮

[@C8Z51Scott]

Those initial hp numbers match a C7 Z06 rwhp. Also, rear wheel engines and front engines front drive do have less hp losses then a front engine rear wheel drive.nIt does not have a heavy driveshaft to spin. That still does not explain those high readings🤔. Plus the C7 Z06 had SAE ratings of 650hp, so I am skeptical as well.

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

Agreed. Something seems off...

[@LearningFast]

Over 100 HP per liter would be good. However, anywhere near 100 LB feet per liter at the crank is impossible. It is literally past the theoretical limit for a production naturally aspirated engine.

[@quix99]

Say that to a nascar motor. I had a 383 with 640ft lb of torque. Wtf is a theortetical limit of a production engine? Lol. Like gm cant make hp now?

[@patriotsfan1236]

@@quix99 a stock lt2 will not make this kind of power........ It's a glorified lt1. A cammed ls7 with heads and full bolts on can't even obtain these numbers.

[@quix99]

Bonanza Driver isnt the ls7 a 427? Im pretty sure that motor can make that without breakin a sweat. Dont forget..stock heads have a ton of meat on them to open the pockets up, and these stock cams are tiny as hell.

[@patriotsfan1236]

@@quix99 . 630 wheel on pump gas is possible but very hard. The highest around was 680rwhp Jon b on corvette forums. The limiting factor is the aftermarket intake manifolds for na ls7s.

[@patriotsfan1236]

@@quix99 I shouldn't say it's unobtainable but it has to be heavily modded. It's not easy at all.

[@clydeshelton6533]

Yup... 0-60 in 2.8 seconds... Yeah not 495 lmao... I knew something was up! 600+ on a STOCK motor!!! Chevy is back on top baby!!

[@EK-rr2md]

Another person that doesn't understand how this works. The C8 engine is SAE certified. Look up what that means. C6 Z06s ran the quarter just as fast if not faster with 505hp. www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c6-corvette-zr1-and-z06/4171189-the-c6-z06-fast-list.html

[@clydeshelton6533]

@@EK-rr2md ok well nice observation. But still ls7 couldn't run a 0-60 time as quick as this c8 is claiming. Still isn't proved yes I know. But still. The ls3 was faster then the ls7 but lower numbers???

[@EK-rr2md]

@@clydeshelton6533 the LS3 came in the base C6 and was definitely not faster than the LS7 that came in the C6 Z06. Not sure what makes you think that. Also, the low 0-60 is more of a function of low gearing, traction, and transmission in the C8.

[@clydeshelton6533]

@@EK-rr2md oh yeah?? I know gears in rear end and trans make different times. Lol I thought that the ls3 was faster. But lower HP. But anywho. Wonder what the actual HP of the new zr1 would be

[@NinjaKiller1022]

This is amazing, I read about it 10 hours ago. GM really put in work on this car and it shows. They have surprising everyone. I can’t wait to see what the future models look like and what tuners can do to the cars, and what they put down. This car is a game changer for sure.

[@edwardwood3622]

Guys, did you look at the graph? The power drops off significantly after peak. The numbers MT posted in the magazine were 495 @ 6450 which is right where it was (at the wheels). Oddly MT also posted the the redline was 6400?

[@isaiahr3471]

McLaren 720S is rated @710HP but dyno numbers have shown its closer to 800HP (Stock) & BMW notoriously underrates their outputs but damn! Lol ABOUT DAMN TIME GM joined the underrating & OVERDELIVERING game! 👍👍👍

[@jayrife5949]

Right out of the manual. All of the following factors can influence the power measured by a chassis dynamometer: 1. Tire compound, pressure and temperature. 2. Engine, transmission and differential temperatures. 3. Lubricant types. 4. Method of vehicle restraint (downward pressure will waste power). 5. Type of testing performed: fast decelerating sweeps will generate the highest values, steady state tests will generate intermediate values, and fast accelerating sweeps will generate the lowest values, due to the internal power requirements of the engine and drive-train in the vehicle under test. 6. Atmospheric condition corrections to different “standard” conditions. 7. Operator driving differences (can be very significant!). 8. Data acquisition options, particularly smoothing/averaging and clipping functions. mustangdyne.com/_wss/clients/205/assets/c205_resources/20170606154755541.75

[@GoogleEqualsEvil]

Exactly. Chassis Dynos are for TUNING, NOT for accurately measuring Power / Torque. ONLY a Flywheel (Crankshaft) Dyno can accurately measure engine output (Power / Torque). Which is what the SAE protocol uses. Plus, the SAE testing protocol is a detailed, standardized testing protocol designed by actual ENGINEERS, not a random operator running a Chassis Dyno just doing random pulls.

[@alycem1]

In the late 60s early 70s they underrated cars by a lot for the purpose of insurance.

[@gtuttle4]

Yep, my Dodge Challenger T/A 340 six-pack was rated 290 hp, it was actually 350 hp.

[@markhamrick9078]

@@gtuttle4 You're right, and a great car by the way!😎

[@markhamrick9078]

Good call!😎

[@stangmann1521]

Thank you - Some spot on great points 100% , great video IMO...!!

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

Thank you!

[@jimellenw]

SAE Certified out put 495 and 470 at the crank. Would have to look up the SAE standard to see what the tolerance is.

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

Agreed.

[@tcroft2165]

2%

[@Bernievids]

I thought this is a scam but then when Angus was on the testing staff, I trusted the result immediately. GM has a great platform running with this new C8. Exciting for those who can afford it.

[@kitvexed8229]

i dont see a problem here... let them underrate the hp and everybody just shut up! i need to run out and pre-order one before motortrend screws it up for everybody lol

[@ricoreyonfire]

Facts!

[@speedlife301]

No way a stock displacement 376 engine is making 80 more tq than hp and 650 hp stock with no long tubes , heads, cam and e85. Those numbers are stroker numbers no way

[@bobbywilliams1823]

Mustang dyno probably being a little more than generous.. maybe. We'll see

[@sullivandesignccs]

Bobby Williams - mustang dynos are the lowest reading (vs dynopac and dynojet)

[@bobbywilliams1823]

@@sullivandesignccs Yeah I agree they usually are the hearbreaker of dynos. Idk, I can't believe that car is making that much power. They'll have some comparisons very soon.

[@canteenpapi3040]

How can it be generous when it's fact that mustang Dynos read lower numbers? Cmon, don't be a hater. This is a beautiful car which will improve the car industry tremendously!

[@bobbywilliams1823]

@@canteenpapi3040 No hating here. Ive got an Lt1 car sitting in the driveway. I'd be over the moon if the 2 is putting that power down. Just don't see how a NA car can

[@clinthelling3560]

I'm a GM fan boy myself. But I know it wouldn't be the first time they under rated their engines. I don't remember the exact numbers but the Buick Grand National is one of them. My dad worked for GM for 32 years. And the 283 Power pack was another one. How about 410 HP from a B body at the Janesville assembly plant, He told me the engineers didn't even understand why it was producing the numbers themselves. My thoughts would pure geometry. Even a cast iron crankshaft at a 3 inch stroke can run all day at 8200 RPM. And He said they had to actually tackle valve float to get it if memory serves me correct. Only thing is I don't know is if it was a Carter carb engine or the Rochester fuelie. This was long before the Quadrajet in 65. One article I read was they did it to keep the insurance companies at bay along with government regulators. A little fuel for thought. Thanks for your time.

[@GmAmericanpower]

Normally Mustang dynos read lower than a Dynojet, even though you can alter the parameters....🤔

[@ajking913]

Wow. There's about to be TONS of 2020 Corvette parts available.

[@DazdnCofuzd]

Is it possible that chevy is upping the hp on their press cars, to make it look better when being tested???

[@easyx9mm]

This make sense, with 490 hp this car would never achieve 3 second 0-60 time. I’m not surprised.

[@haydengroover590]

It get that 0-60 because of the aggressive gearing and the amount of grip due to more weight being almost directly over the rear wheels with 40% front/60% rear weight balance compared to the c7 that has what many consider to be a perfect 50/50 :)

[@headwinded1948]

every driver on the planet: GM: Hey, lets put a brake by wire system in this car

[@johncoleman5388]

Given the C8s performance, I would say it is highly underrated. I do not believe this car makes 495 horsepower at the crank.

[@AB-80X]

Maybe, but it's not 650. It's not even 550. Look at what it takes to make an LT1 do that SAE, it's just not possible with the heads and cam in that car.

[@JK-wz7uj]

GM: The new vette has 495hp Motor Trend: Those are rookie numbers

[@erikcapozzi771]

Uhhh dont think motor trend had anything to actually do with the numbers.but good attempt at a cheesy lame joke bubba

[@janstubbs]

I suggest the possibility that the drive-line power loss with the new transmission and differential might be significantly less than the 10-15% you expect. If true this could explain some of the discrepancy. It is also good news that more of the power will make it to the rear wheels.

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

GM confirmed it's less than 15% but wouldn't give an actual number. Even if it's 0% it still wouldn't dyno over 550hp at the wheels.

[@D-Man_Jam]

It's so stupid that European manufacturers charge so much. For instance, one of their prized cars is the AMG Black series. It's 250k, with 500~ HP. And has a 0-60 of 3.4 seconds. The C8 is 190k cheaper, and it's 11 seconds faster on the nurburgring, has a faster 1/4 mile, and is 0.6 seconds faster to 60. That just shows you how overpriced they are.

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

Absolutely! 👍👍

[@drawncept8391]

@DJBATMANGOLD, where did you get a 'ring time, my friend?! Has it been released?

[@shoobadoo123]

DJBATMANGOLD there are multiple amg black series cars, and they’re all older. Which one are you taking about?

[@assgoblin99]

Yeah umm there’s a few more factors than just power if yer gonna use Mercedes/AMG as the comparison

[@Marcusb338]

DJBATMANGOLD are you stupid? The AMG black series is an a limited edition luxury car with 5 seats lmao. Great comparison there

[@74beeper97]

With a mid-engine platform utilizing a very modern trans-axle will have less parasitic loss than a more traditional front engine setup with separate components

[@lostbetrayed]

I really doubt MotorTrend would have manipulated the numbers they'd loose a lot of their credibility that they've spent several years building I don't doubt that the LT2 makes a whole lot more power then GM/Chevrolet are claiming especially considering the crazy performance numbers that we have heard about from the C8

[@martinmdl6879]

Shhh. If insurance companies hear 500+ hp all of our rates will triple. Check SAE specs. They used to rate cars Hp at the crank. 10 or 15 years ago they revised the standards to be measured at the tires. You are correct, there is always measurement error in ANY measuring device.

[@cindysue5474]

Great comment and you are correct with this car the insurance co. are rubbing their hands together I think people will be in for a shock.

[@martinmdl6879]

@@cindysue5474 No we should still be OK. All you need to do is cite the "official" 495 advertised Hp and respond "those guys at Motor Trend must be nuts". My C8 is barely more than a VW Beetle and only to be driven to church by grandma. :)

[@jamiemcneil9462]

You forgot to take into consideration that Motor Trend makes a living from selling advertisements to GM. They clearly have a conflict of interest .. you can not believe anything they say, they have zero credibility.

[@C8Z51Scott]

Jamie McNeil So you are saying MT is a CNN? Fake news😋😆!

[@linusa2996]

If this result is repeated with other C8's then perhaps the motor really is putting out more than what the SAE says that it does.

[@CamaroRick]

So it will run a 10.50 @130? Since when do 6.2 LT1's nose dive at 5900 RPM?

[@mainwayne1352]

Why didn’t they tested it the way the SAE does, and see what numbers they come up with?

[@Crysmatic]

Based on trap speed and race weight, the C8 is making almost exactly 495 bhp. No need for the click bait. Mustang dynos are THE standard in the auto industry (not as *popular* as dynojet because they don't inflate numbers). They are very precise. 15% is a very arbitrary figure. Motor Trend needs do a coast down test to measure actual friction and estimate drag loss. The gear ratio doesn't matter so much as long as you know the ratio. Then the dyno can use the correct multiplication factors. Then you have different correction factors. GM uses are more conservative SAE factor. Shop dynos would use an optimistic one that inflates numbers (because it makes them look better, and customers like big numbers).

[@blustem1]

My last sports car was a 911 GT3. I will buy a C8 next year after they get the bugs worked out.

[@kozlovracing2772]

Do what I'm doing, wait for the Z06 :)

[@squidusn71]

I like this C8 but that gt3 is badass and probably kept it instead...if I were you, but, I'm not.

[@rm125]

I will be selling my Hellcat for the Z06 when it’s out

[@TRX25EX]

What a downgrade you making lol, try to get another GT3, its in total different world than C8, even GT4 is more fun and better value as a car all about having a nice fun experience than C8

[@squidusn71]

@@TRX25EX I'm a Corvette fan for its value, performance, and aftermarket support. With that said, I agree with you lol. That gt3 will look bada$$ for decades, value goes up, while c8 will be a dime a dozen.

[@bumperxx1]

can i just say i live 30min from GM and Ford head office and its great to see that Michigan plate on that car and all the american cars. silicon valley only gets to stamp it's name on things with no real value and some china company will be right there to make it cheaper but thats not the case with super cars. Also i see lots of M plates right before they go into production driving right down the I94 interstate.

[@captaincoffeecake3595]

-"Manufactures never under estimate their engines HP by that much " Toyota Supra & Nissan Skyline - Hold our beers

[@monkkeye]

I remember when stock 2013 e63 AMG rated at 518hp and 516trq made over 560rwhp and over 550trq

[@braddfordy]

@@somebody9889 cobra motors where not sae certified

[@lencac7952]

The thing that nobody is mentioning is something that GM used even way back in the muscle car days when emissions and insurance started to pressure the manufacturers over their HP rating. And that is at what RPM are the readings being taken and certified. If you look at the dyno graph the engine puts out 495 hp @ 5100 rpm. So I find it interesting that nobody in this video makes the correlation between hp @ what rpm.

[@Mmyers1177]

I just hope GM doesn’t detune future engine’s based on MT lacking knowledge of the Mid Engine setup. Mid engine layout design was created to eliminate some drive train losses and add more weight to the rear tires. Probably loosing 8-10% with half shafts......

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

GM confirmed drivetrain loss is less than 15% with MT but wouldn't confirm the exact number. I highly doubt they will detune anything because there's almost no chance the car is making this much power. Something was definitely wrong with MT's setup.

[@10SecondZ06]

at 9:10, MotorTrend has the HP and Torque numbers flip flopped. The Dyno run showed 558HP and that would make more sense since you kept saying 650hp at the motor.

[@WillRiedel]

It’s probably actually making the power. They being homies making a super car we can afford the insurance on🙏🏻🌍⭐️

[@JESUSISLOVE7777777]

People fail to realize that there are resistance amounts that are supposed to applied to the rollers to simulate actually road conditions. It's usually 30% unless I'm mistaken. They didn't address that at all in the dyno calibrations and that rating probably is probably only for when your car's wheels are not on the ground lol

[@devengudinas1649]

It’s under rated to sell the c7 s that are still on the lots rotting away

[@Pcgamingfixes]

Deven Gudinas yea those things have been selling slow the last year or two

[@Loulovesspeed]

@James Goldberg - Corvette sales have been down 4 straight years, just like Camaro. Good old GM going in the wrong direction...……………..again!

[@Cartier_specialist]

I think the 0 to 60 trap time is more in line with the numbers the C8 laid down on the dyno. i.e. look at other similar weight cars 0 to 60 times and their horsepower numbers. I'm not saying Chevrolet intentionally quoted lower power output than the car actually produces but they might have listed the horsepower one might obtain in say for example Denver Colorado with a high altitude.

[@carzguyz5142]

That would explain the 0 to 60 in 2.8 secs for sure. 🤔 Wow...this car is full of surprises. I think that's the key word here. We'll all be surprised if these numbers are even close to being accurate. Great stuff HPO...thanks J. 😉👍

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

Thanks! I'm not holding my breath that these are accurate. Something was skewing the results for sure.

[@Marcusb338]

CarzGuyz yeah but look at the 1/4mils trap speed. If it really had 650 HP it’d be hitting 130mph minimum in the 1/4mile. In tests it only hit 123mph

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

Right. I'd love to see this power be real, but a lot of information points to it not being legit.

[@AB-80X]

@@Marcusb338 Not only that. Go and look at how much slower it is on the circuits with corners compared to other cars with less or similar power. It's 1.6 seconds slower around Laguna Seca compared to the 458 and both driven by Randy Pobst. The car that was tested was even the Z51. About 500 SAE C_bhp seems legit.

[@pontiac411]

GM is known for giving the mags a car that performs way better then what they will release to the public, they did it with the GTO, one car had a 427 and the other had a very warmed over 350 but they told the mags that the car were what would be produced.

[@brettgaldieri3873]

Never to high!!!!! Bring on the Z06!!!

[@blessedhighlyfavored5170]

What I don't understand is IF GM could've made an LT Engine w/600HP NATURALLY ASPIRATED, why not put that into the C7 Z06!!!? that would've been a better sports/track car

[@freedomfirst5420]

0-60mph in 2.8sec., that's the number that is for sure!👍👍

[@AB-80X]

No. That's a really short first gear. The slow Laguna Seca lap is the work of a 495 hp car.

[@DemoEvolvedGaming]

6:00 Option number 3: Chevy provided a "ringer", Option number 4: The cooling on the engine is weak enough that when the certifying body's testing method ran it, the engine was overheating, which lowers the hp.

[@thiosemicarbizidebenzoylal2921]

Option 3 is off the table because GM knows the GERMANS lie all the time as well as McLaren. The SAE numbers are off.

[@DemoEvolvedGaming]

@@thiosemicarbizidebenzoylal2921 Sorry I can't agree that Option 3 is off the table. It is altogether too big a lure for any company to provide a ringer for product reviews, and then hope that noone notices when the actual product comes out and performs worse. What is really the liability for Chevy to ship a ringer to Motortrend/Road & Track, and then, as long as they ship a 2.95 0-60 Z51, does anyone really notice that the car goes slower around the track than the reviewer's car did? Will the reviewer really go back and re-review a customer car? Will anyone actually read that? We live in a "First review" culture. The c8 road and track review was one of the most anticipated reviews of cars in 8 years. So Im really gonna need to see dynos for customer cars 100%

[@thiosemicarbizidebenzoylal2921]

@@DemoEvolvedGaming Watch Katechs vid and you start to understand at the manufacturing level it cost pennies for GM to do the same. The LT 1 is one of the best air pumps in the business, and we are only talking flow throughout the engine.

[@DemoEvolvedGaming]

@@thiosemicarbizidebenzoylal2921 "it cost pennies for GM to do the same." could you clarify? Im not sure what to take away from your comment. Thx

[@thiosemicarbizidebenzoylal2921]

@@DemoEvolvedGaming Engines are just pumps. GM did all the flow work in castings for the consumer 700hp race engines by katech are pumping massive volumes of air. So how hard would it be for GM to do at a factory level? I actually predicted as much since we already know a LT 1 with cam, flow work and tune is 550 on the ground NA if done correct. Why would anyone not believe it?

[@SK8BOARDLEE]

Typically is never underrated by 150 hp Mclaren 720s : Hold My Beer

[@Loulovesspeed]

@SK8BOARDLEE - FYI, "typically" and "never" are contradictory words! It's no big deal that the C8 can beat the 720s - The Ford GT can do so with a V6!

[@Loulovesspeed]

@giantmidget08 - Not sure where you're info is coming from. I'm talking about the Top Gear test track at Dunsfold Aerodrome in Surrey, England. You may have heard of it. Lotus built the track to test their cars, including F1. The Ford GTs time was quicker than both the 650s and 720s, as well as the Mercedes AMG GTR, Audi R8 V10, 2 Porsches and the Nissan GTR.

[@c5d53g2e]

They did it BIG-time in the late 60's early 70's.

[@diegosilang4823]

GM is notorious for underrating their engines.

[@joediblasio1846]

They all under rate their engines

[@cyclistman6358]

MT is in the business to promote auto sales and does so for the big players. I’m not surprised at their HP findings but am doubtful as to its accuracy. Bottom line for me is that whatever the actual HP truly is it will still put a big smile on my face as I accelerate!!

[@dr69296]

It has to be a dyno issue. The 1/4 time and speed don’t show that.

[@matthewschiebout7384]

right, once the C8 is launched no acceleration stats back up this much power!

[@okaythen001]

Wha'ts the 1/4 ET and Trap? and 60

[@tcroft2165]

@@okaythen001 just over 11

[@tcroft2165]

@RealCapo88 2,8 is with a 1' rollout. Thats worth about .2s.

[@dwayneleigh9]

Dear Santa! I want a C8 for Christmas!😎

[@bmann792]

I’d love to believe it but there’s no way it’s true. Naturally aspirated? No way this is accurate

[@patriotsfan1236]

@@soulsnatcher5408 not the lt2. Unless it's getting 427 reesleeve cam heads etccc.. no way it is.......

[@patriotsfan1236]

@@soulsnatcher5408 no it cant....... The same exact internals as the LT1. It's literally not possible in its current form not even crank power. I know a lot about these engines.

[@patriotsfan1236]

@@soulsnatcher5408 same cubic inch and same exact pistons and material. The power gains from what I can tell is intake design, exhaust, and different engine tuning.

[@patriotsfan1236]

@@soulsnatcher5408 the cam is different but it's not any more aggressive based on it's specs. That's the only Internal change.

[@bonosimic532]

well, there are LS engines that make 700 while still being n/a (ad they were durable and reliable still as well).

[@joelpierce3940]

I have a 2019 ZO6 M7, and I have seen a few C8’s on the track and this HP seems to high, but I don’t know how the transmission is working. I don’t know how much I am putting down.

[@alonzobates348]

What if we get another dyno run tomorrow, but with a different dyno and still high numbers?! What if this is the test version for the C8Z06....what if GM is playing mind games on us, what if the race car version gets here sooner than we think 🙌🏽💪🏽 gotta love American Muscle

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

Absolutely!!!

[@zmanphx]

Running the wrong gear doesn't give way more horsepower. The dyno doesn't know what gear you used. It just calculates the power to move the rollers. The power output can't be greater than the input by using gears.

[@erockhikes8515]

Every mustang dyno run ive ever seen reads lower than other dynos

[@CMH_1975]

They can be manipulated to read whatever you want.

[@patriotsfan1236]

No..... You don't know anything about dynos then.

[@jayhilliard4365]

Dyno not calibrated properly. My guess is LT2 makes about 505-510hp at crank and GM rates at 495 hp to be conservative.

[@HorsePowerObsessed]

Exactly my thoughts.

[@racingsfun]

Mustang dynos are typically all over the place. Best to use a dynojet where you cant fudge thr numbers amd can compare all dynojets to each other..