They are all underrated thats how. Those are common results from a stock Series II engine. GM likes underrating engines. This is why my stock Turbo 3.1, which is rated at 205hp/220tq. made 227hp/272tq. stock, even at 14 years old.

Shawn

That doesn't make sense.. a stock LT1 fbody with 275/325 runs very low 14s. And a 262/340 stock w-body runs low 15s/high 14s?

F Bodys are not lightweights either though.

F body'* launch harder due to RWD+ Weight transfer. They're also a live axle, so you're not fighting suspension forces as much either.

Ok, point taken. But I got another one for ya. My cousin'* GTP put down 242/272 with an intake, 3.4 pulley, and exhaust work and ran 14 flat with it. I dont know what a stock GTP dynoes at, but his assuming his car gained a minumum 25 ftlbs of torque with his mods, thats 90 ft lbs of torque lost in the drivetrain on a stock car..

what is the stock CR for my SER1 ?

8.5 :1 i'm pretty sure

Comparing different dynometers isn't terribly possible, but comparing results from the same one and different cars is. Not all dyno'* are calibrated the same. If i remember right Fantastic88'* curves needed to be adjusted because of the waste spark igntion. But those numbers do seem a little excessive...

Is this wheel hp? I was talking crank hp. The 240hp and 280ftlbs GM rating is crank hp. I bet that GTP'* numbers you show are to the wheels. If they are crank numbers then he has SERIOUS KR because that is way low.

Yes, those are wheel numbers