my buddy from south texas has an 07 NBS running 13.3 w/ tune, pulley, no cats, stall 3000, long tube headers and borla exhaust.............all motor no heads or cam or nitrous...........

 

i really doubt any truck after the 2006 model year is outputting MORE than its rated. the days of GM screwing with their power ratings are over. No more LS1's rated at 305 hp dynoing at 360-370 at the crank. The Lt4 was rated at 330 sae net, but dynos at 360-370 crank hp.

I am sure the newer truck are making more power than previous years, but I think thats due to the oldertrucks making less than their rated power, and the newer trucks are simply running what they are rated.

The newer SAE J test has certainly hurt the Asian power numbers, while it has helped some of the domestics.
LS7 Vette was supposed to be 500 hp and 475 tq, but after the new SAE rating(LS7 was the VERY 1st North American engine to use teh new SAE hp rating system) it was rated at 505hp and 470lb/ft.
The STS was supposed to be 440 hp, but after the new SAE test was rated at 469 sae net hp.
Lots of the Asian cars lost 5-10 hp on average, some lost 20-30 hp.

With the new testing spec, we as truck/car buyers KNOW what we are getting powerwise.

the new SAE testing stipulates that oil levels MUST be FULL in the crankcase/oil tank(in case of dry sump). No more engine dynoing with 2 quarts of oil thus lowering windage losses. ESP. notable in teh high winding 8500+ rpm 4cylinders.
The EXACT EXHAUST/INTAKE that THAT PARTICULAR MODEL uses must be tested. Thats why thesame engine may have a different power rating in a slightly different car.
.
EG 2006 STS Northstar 4.4L blown is rated at 469 hp, but the SAME exact engine in teh 2006 Cadi XLR is rated at 440 hp.

BTW, have you notcied that there are some weird numbers on advertized horsepower? Like 369 hp, 361, 469 hp. No more are the OEMS rounding up or down to the nearest 5 hp or 10 hp. WHat the engines produce, is what they are rated at. Imagine that???

When the 5,3 1st came out, it used 19 pph injectors and developed 265 hp and 315 lb/ft of torque. The Vortec 350 did quite a bitbetter in teh torque dept. with 255 hp and 330 lb/ft.

It was only after 2003 that the 5.3 finally surpassed the 5.7 L31 with 335 lb/ft torque, although it occured a full 1200 rpm higher than the L31.

If a stock rcsb Dodge HEMI can run a 13.7 stock, then I guess I can beleive a stock rcsb 5.3 running a 14.7 stock. I DO know that these STOCK 13.7 Dodgesand 14.7 stock 5.3 Chevs wouldnt run those numbers at the tracks in my area. I am just saying that there are tracks that are better prepped and that are at better/more ideal elevations than where I am at.

It seems that teh newer the trucks get, the heavier they get also, hence the higher power requirements to match/exceed the older trucks.


I would love to get my truck to the tracks that these guys are running their awesome numbers at. I would tag my best ET's for sure. I need to get to thetrack when it opens to see if I can tag some mid 14's with my new Marine with EV6 injectors and 2700 rpm torque converter. I think I can.

Nice times guys, its imopressive just how far technology has brought tehse trucks in teh last 10 years. My truck ran high 15's stock, now runs high 14's all day long, and now teh stock trucks aere running high 14's, albeit with weight reduction in some cases.

peace
Hog

 

all depends on the track and where you live, most C5 vettes run low 14's here.

 

well the lowest et i could get from my 07 was a 15 flat with only 500 miles on it ... now i am at 14 flat with tune exhaust no cats asp pulley and cai

 

I think alot of these people cant drive. There is no reason a C5 corvette should run slower than a 13. But I do agree that track prep is important as well.