That's interesting, but chassis dynos can't be used to determine actual engine HP and torque figures, since there is no accurate, universal "conversion factor."

Here is but one of a host of items I've collected on this topic:

http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/pr...t_4/index.html

Converting rear-wheel power figures to crank numbers is anything but straight-forward. When translating wheel figures to engine claims, some experts use fixed conversion factors. That is, if a stock 218 rear-wheel hp RX-7 is rated from the factory at 255 crank hp, it must have 17-percent driveline losses. A 284 rear-wheel hp RX-7, then, must be blessed with 332 crank hp. This popular, if somewhat optimistic, correction technique assumes driveline loss is proportionate with engine output. That is, as wheel horsepower increases, driveline loss must also increase commensurably. Some would even disregard stock quotes and apply a standard 20-percent drivetrain loss figure. Using this popular correction factor, we already have a 340-hp monster! Some would vehemently disagree. These folks would tend to use a fixed number to represent driveline loss. In this case, they would believe that all RX-7s are faced with a driveline loss of 37 hp. (255 minus 218). Using this correction method, Project RX-7 produces a more conservative 321 ponies at the crank. All three techniques, (as well as other far more [Ahem.] optimistic methods) have been used at one time or another.



I love my '07 TL-S (bone stock). That being said, my bone stock '99 LS1 Camaro put down more than 300 HP at the wheels right off the showroom floor and it did so while yielding fuel economy figures that are identical to my TLS's. (I personally saw better mileage with the Camaro).

Just food for thought...These are MUCH "nicer" cars than the Camaro. I just question the real world efficiency (RWHP * FUEL ECONOMY) of these high revving V6s...Sure the Camaro was a 5.7 liter V8. But if it got the same fuel economy while simultaneously delivering MORE power, then how can anyone argue with it?