Chevy Colorado & GMC Canyon banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
GM paperwork says 308hp at the flywheel. Has anyone put their Colorado on a dyno to see what the usable horsepower might be? It would be interesting to see the drive train loss.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
826 Posts
While I have an older 2016 truck, I tried to dyno my truck yesterday, but the shop didnt have the adapter for our weird 6x120 bolt pattern for his dyno machine so i couldnt. heh, while not your motor or trans if i DO get dyno'd ill post it..
 

·
Registered
BLack Z71 long box 2021
Joined
·
8 Posts
Check horsepower obsessed on YouTube! IT is a Members here! And he put Colorado V6 on dyno and the result around 250hp
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Check horsepower obsessed on YouTube! IT is a Members here! And he put Colorado V6 on dyno and the result around 250hp
Yeah, it's crazy. I have seen posts claim losses from 40hp to 70hp. I'm just a nerd wanting a closer number. The Colorado power is at 6800 rpm, theoretically But most seem to fall in the 15-20% loss area. And those percentages have been fairly consistent over the years. Strange they cannot make a more efficient drive train
 

·
Registered
2019 GMC Canyon CC 4X4, 2020 Chevy Z71 CC 2WD
Joined
·
489 Posts
Ripp Superchargers has a 3.6 colorado 6spd on the dyno with aftermarket exhaust and cai, no supercharger. 278hp/265ftlbs at the wheel on a roller dyno.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LargestAl

·
Registered
2019 GMC Canyon CC 4X4, 2020 Chevy Z71 CC 2WD
Joined
·
489 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
That isn't how it works. The exhaust and intake mods don't close the percentage loss from stock engine to wheel horsepower figures.

The exhaust and intake modifications increase engine horsepower but drivetrain % loss will not be altered.

You would have to run lighter wheels, axles, etc to reduce rotational mass to reduce loss.

The problem with dyno figures is that they are affected by altitude, temperature, humidity and a plethora of other factors. So no two dynos will read the same.

Your 2019 engine is the same as the 2017s and 2018s. Any truck with an LGX should be similar in power. You don't need to look for just 2019.
 

·
Registered
2019 GMC Canyon CC 4X4, 2020 Chevy Z71 CC 2WD
Joined
·
489 Posts
The only thing I can say is, RIPP has two Colorado Dynos on YouTube and both were in the mid 270 range at the wheels. Given 308 stated hp from GM, that would equate to a 10-11% loss. RIPP didn't give any other specs such as tire size or weight or weather conditions. They did say the intake and cat back were the only mods. RIPP is located in Staten Island, NY and the highest elevation for Staten Island is 410ft. above sea level. I'm betting RIPP could give us the actual numbers from the dyno sheets. I agree that the number will vary, but I wouldn't think they'd be more than about 15-20%. I found one other dyno run with before and after a CAI on stock exhaust. 247-251 pre CAI AND 249-252 after CAI and I didn't care for that particular intake at all. All this particular intake changed was the air filter and air box. No smooth bore, straight tract tubing. Again with no other info on conditions or tires. Take the lowest stock run of 247 and you'd be at a 20% loss before CAI and cat back exhaust. Even not knowing all of the variables, a net gain of 20-30hp aren't outside the realm of possibility. I think 20hp would be a pretty average gain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
I wasn't saying you can't have those figures, I am saying that mods to the engine are not going to reduce drivetrain percentage loss as was stated above. Also depending on the dyno used you can VASTLY different numbers. Search, Heartbreaker vs DreamMaker to see how dissimilar Mustang and Dynojet dynos are.

I will however now say that you are not gaining 20-30hp from a catback exhaust and CAI on a 3.6 V6. The advancements in engine design and variable air/fuel tables via the ECU negate the days of carburetor and early MAF systems where you the end user could truly improve upon archaic design with simply bolt-ons.

The stock intake is a CAI and the smoothing of the intake track is negligible as the manifold runners will sort that out before the air reaches the combustion chambers.

Any restrictions in our exhaust are before the parts we replace with most of the kits available. There are 3 catalytic converters that would be a choking point.

Any gains seen are from the accompanying tune that vendors put in place to "compensate for the improved air flow"........:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
quick rule of thumb.

Crank hp * efficiency of drivetrain = wheel hp
FWD (or other applications where the crank is parallel to the axles), assume 10% loss
RWD (or other applications where the crank is perpendicular to the axles), assume 15% loss

Add in some fudge factor for a transfer case, AWD, etc..

308 * 0.85 = 261
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
But most seem to fall in the 15-20% loss area. And those percentages have been fairly consistent over the years. Strange they cannot make a more efficient drive train
It's because this has nothing to do with technology evolving. Geartrains have sub-100% efficiencies. Whenever you transmit mechanical work, you will always lose some amount of that work in the process, whether it's to noise, drag, heat, friction, etc. etc. etc..
 

·
Registered
2019 GMC Canyon CC 4X4, 2020 Chevy Z71 CC 2WD
Joined
·
489 Posts
I have to argue one point...if GM puts a motor on the dyno, it's not going to be with the air box and stock exhaust when they got 308hp. Very seldom see an engine dyno with all of the goodies in place. You're correct that were not gaining hp, we're regaining hp. Truth be told, 308hp was a computer figure and not a dyno. Given standard dyno practice, we lost considerable hp from the engine stand to the chassis. I think a good open flow exhaust system will gain hp. Maybe not butt dyno, but some gains. I've never been a CAI fan considering we have a cold air intake in stock form. Throttle reaction can be improved though with less restriction, less bends and lass turbulence. I get the overall point though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
I have to argue one point...if GM puts a motor on the dyno, it's not going to be with the air box and stock exhaust when they got 308hp. Very seldom see an engine dyno with all of the goodies in place. You're correct that were not gaining hp, we're regaining hp. Truth be told, 308hp was a computer figure and not a dyno. Given standard dyno practice, we lost considerable hp from the engine stand to the chassis. I think a good open flow exhaust system will gain hp. Maybe not butt dyno, but some gains. I've never been a CAI fan considering we have a cold air intake in stock form. Throttle reaction can be improved though with less restriction, less bends and lass turbulence. I get the overall point though.
Crate engines are usually dyoned with no accessories to get high numbers, but car manufactures since about 1972 are required to use SAE net hp. SAE net power testing protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. So yes, that 308 HP is on a dyno with the same full exhaust, air cleaner, emissions and accessories that are on the vehicle when sold.
 

·
Registered
2017 All Terrain 2.8L CCLB Dark Slate Metallic
Joined
·
1,058 Posts
Crate engines are usually dyoned with no accessories to get high numbers, but car manufactures since about 1972 are required to use SAE net hp. SAE net power testing protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. So yes, that 308 HP is on a dyno with the same full exhaust, air cleaner, emissions and accessories that are on the vehicle when sold.
I am willing to bet that test facility is not in Denver, CO. :ROFLMAO:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Crate engines are usually dyoned with no accessories to get high numbers, but car manufactures since about 1972 are required to use SAE net hp. SAE net power testing protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. So yes, that 308 HP is on a dyno with the same full exhaust, air cleaner, emissions and accessories that are on the vehicle when sold.
SAE Net was actually out about 15 years ago. There was a new SAE Certified standard issued in 2005 which GM has used since the mid 00s (the LS7 was the first to be officially "SAE Certified") and most manufacturers also switched over to around then. Quite a few of the Asian makes actually lost power under the new rating system at the time.

The Germans of course use a different standard for HP measurement as for a good decade now most BMW engines have been putting down to the wheels what they are advertised at.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
SAE Net was actually out about 15 years ago. There was a new SAE Certified standard issued in 2005 which GM has used since the mid 00s (the LS7 was the first to be officially "SAE Certified") and most manufacturers also switched over to around then. Quite a few of the Asian makes actually lost power under the new rating system at the time.

The Germans of course use a different standard for HP measurement as for a good decade now most BMW engines have been putting down to the wheels what they are advertised at.
Thanks for that info. I didn't read the details for this new standard, just that it is even more strict and takes out some fudge factors to keep the testers honest. Kind of like the tow ratings, doesn't mean much unless everyone uses the same SAE Certified standards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Thanks for that info. I didn't read the details for this new standard, just that it is even more strict and takes out some fudge factors to keep the testers honest. Kind of like the tow ratings, doesn't mean much unless everyone uses the same SAE Certified standards.
Yup, very much analogous to that. Because when a bunch of engineers see people fudging tests and using loopholes to make 'em look better, we'll band together and issue a 400 page spec document telling you precisely how the test must be done! The EPA city/highway mileage tests got revamped around that time too to be much more specific and representative of real world driving.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top