[LS3] Is the Euro 5 VFII affected by detuning... is it 304?

[monstar]

4th gear vf2.. Stock vs CAI

Thanks. Says the tacho source is the rollers, not the engine. The description says it is a VEII 6.2 which could be anything but would make sense if it were a blue Maloo.

Above is a graph same dyno same place, in same shoot_8 shows straight off the showroom VFII SS making 10kW less.

Above is a graph same dyno same place, in same shoot_8 shows stock VFI makes 6 rwkw less than the VFII (2.7% less).

See Shoot_8 is different to DynoDynamics J1349 mode, which is the correct mode to measure and apply correction to accepted standard.
Shoot_8 is specifically for locking settings and comparing res back to back, not compensating to a standard for external comparison.

No need to infer anything about the intent of the operator or accuracy of the process, for measuring power to a standard should have lots more information in a panel and state the correction method. Shoot_8 is not corrected J609 or the language of GM and Detroit, J1349.

 

[monty_vfssv]

Thanks. Says the tacho source is the rollers, not the engine. The description says it is a VEII 6.2 which could be anything but would make sense if it were a blue Maloo.

View attachment 198355
Above is a graph same dyno same place, in same shoot_8 shows straight off the showroom VFII SS making 10kW less.

View attachment 198357
Above is a graph same dyno same place, in same shoot_8 shows stock VFI makes 6 rwkw less than the VFII (2.7% less).

See Shoot_8 is different to DynoDynamics J1349 mode, which is the correct mode to measure and apply correction to accepted standard.
Shoot_8 is specifically for locking settings and comparing res back to back, not compensating to a standard for external comparison.

No need to infer anything about the intent of the operator or accuracy of the process, for measuring power to a standard should have lots more information in a panel and state the correction method. Shoot_8 is not corrected J609 or the language of GM and Detroit, J1349.

Its definitely a blue vf2 ss ute.. not going to post photos of someone elses car for the sake of it but you can find it on there fb page.

My guess would be that its a manual vf1?? Power outputs are going to vary car to car, day to day, dyno to dyno.. looking at all the different stock dyno graphs over the internet i would be confident in saying the 304kw sales wank is close enough to the actual engine kw rating (im going with 290+ engine kw). A bee's dick off maybe but nothing to get your knickers in a twist over. Holden has always been pushing the limits of what they advertise in terms of hp. Ford engines with over boost make a mockery of this when doing dyno shootouts.. not that it correlates directly with performance.

 

[monstar]

Dynos which are properly setup to output to a certified standard don’t vary car to car, day to day. No.
That dyno you presented is not compensating for any external factors under Shoot_8. Is only to lock settings in when comparing runs back to back.
Thanks for looking, but I understand the engines, logging and graphs enough to realise you can’t take any of those uncorrected figures as meaningful to compare. The setting clearly say it is free run on the rollers, not even linked to the engine tacho.
Not that interested at this point to discuss other car makers or engines either really.
Looking for credible evidence in support Euro 5 LS3 making same output as Euro 4, and that is proving difficult to find.

 

[Mike__]

Quoted these guys before but here's some more fuel to Add to the fire

vf1
http://www.streetquick.com.au/news/project-vf/project-vf-part-i-the-baseline

Vf2
http://www.streetquick.com.au/news/project-vf-ii/project-vf-ii-part-i-the-new-frontier


8hp difference before bolt ons. Small difference in et terminal speed.
38hp difference after bolts ons - larger difference in et terminal speed.

Different conditions day to day etc etc but may only be 5%

 

[monstar]

8hp difference before bolt ons.

Thanks @Mike__ that’s brilliant.
Satisfies one of the main points in a recent thread where owners opinion and perception of the stock L77 vs VFII LS3 was that the Euro 5 was much more powerful:

VFI stock measured 236.4 rwkw

VFII stock measured 242.2 rwkw

Same dyno, credible evidence, net difference 5.8 rwkw (2.4%).

 

[monty_vfssv]

Another 242kw stock vf2.. must be the magic number. 307 engine kw, not bad at all.

 

[monstar]

Another 242kw stock vf2.. must be the magic number. 307 engine kw, not bad at all.

Sure, that makes sense and is in accord with GM’s published data.
So reasonably if that is as the accepted figure, and by all credible accounts the VFI is 2.5% less, using the same scale the magic figure is 236kw for a stock VFI. 299 engine kw on 98, not bad at all.
Also makes sense why VFI 0-100 is within 5% of VFII even though it has the shorter diff. What is most fascinating is the VEII has same drivetrain as VFI but 0.1s faster, just 0.1s behind the VFII.
Being so close in fact (not opinion), makes me wonder how much more stock VFI makes over VFII on flex fuel. GM claims 5% more power...

 

[monty_vfssv]

Sure, that makes sense and is in accord with GM’s published data.
So reasonably if that is as the accepted figure, and by all credible accounts the VFI is 2.5% less, using the same scale token the magic figure is 236kw for a stock VFI. 299 engine kw on 98, not bad at all.
Also makes sense why VFI 0-100 is within 5% of VFII even though it has the shorter diff. What is most fascinating is the VEII has same drivetrain as VFI but 0.1s faster, just 0.1s behind the VFII.
Being so close in fact (not opinion), makes me wonder how much more stock VFI makes over VFII on flex fuel

I'd be happy with that vf1 power figure! Shame most of them dyno less than 220kw (alot of them making barely over 200kw).. looks like it got left behind after a few mods which would back cudas claims of the ls3 being favorable with basic mods.

 

[monstar]

I'd be happy with that vf1 power figure! Shame most of them dyno less than 220kw (alot of them making barely over 200kw).. looks like it got left behind after a few mods which would back cudas claims of the ls3 being favorable with basic mods.

You are still generalising with your opinion without evidence regarding both engines and confusing absolute uncorrected dyno figures subject to temp, baro and other variable setup parameters with actual calibrated SAE or STD standards. Is not a shame or pity, is just not suitable for comparison. Nor is general comment in keeping with the technical nature of this thread.
Off- Topic re: LS3 being inherently “better” for unopened mods
Flex fuel is not a mod, +5% should be noted as highest stock peak, puts L77 ahead.
The unopened RPM ceiling for daily driver tuning mods usually occurs before the engine’s redline. John is an expert, he has built many drag cars like this. GenIV with hypereutectic pistons redline is 6600 RPM, John’s tune revs 6750+. That’s 1000 RPM more than the 6.0 was allowed to spin, aka significantly higher HP potential.
John clearly has the experience however I also have experience (and more faith) in revisions to the AFM setup courtesy of drag race testing by the car’s current NA world record holder, who regularly takes the AFM engine past redline. My RPM ceiling for example was 6400 unopened, limited by injectors on flex, not AFM.
Tune results can’t be compared when one puts an RPM (HP) ceiling 1000 RPM less vs the other. So @monty_vfssv to assert that one engine “gets left behind after a few mods” is baseless.
Also incorrect to derive from max effort drag tuning that LS3 is “better” for daily driver mods, when peak power is shown within 5% of each other, that is until the lesser valve lift of the stock 6.0 cam takes a toll around 270-285 rwkw.
It is correct to state the cam fitted as standard to the LS3 allows greater peak power, no doubt.
Different cam events, more than anything else to do with head / bore fit, allow the 6.2 to reach the higher power peak.
From the evidence there is 2.5% difference stock, less than 5% with mods up to 270-285 rwkw where the AFM cam restricts power.
[It is worth a note that bolting high ratio rockers to increase lift (time/area duration) brings flow of the AFM cam back to within 5%.]
LS3 cam with FBO makes 304 rwkw on 98, +7.5% vs 6.0 on 98. Flex fuel does level the score

 

[monty_vfssv]

If your going to note putting higher ratio rockers on one, you cant leave out the other.. apple's to apple's.

Ls3 daily driving charectoristics aren't going to change leaving the stock cam as is. Having more up top is just a bonus..

This is one example of how close they can be stock. Theres plenty of vf1 only just cracking the 200rwkw mark. Whilst majority of vf2 cracking the 230-245kw mark.

Maybe you need more stock vf1 dyno graphs to analyze. Do you really think the vf1 would have 299fwkw and have holden market it as 260fwkw? No chance in hell. But it suits your agenda so we'll roll with it..