Whenever a new performance car hits the market, a quick trip to the dyno always seems to be the first priority. This phenomenon again holds true for the new Pontiac G8 GT. After having driven the sport sedan, we remarked that the sedan's 6.0-liter small block V8 engine provided "a glorious combination of aural assault and potent propulsion." We do love us some alliteration! Getting back to the dyno, the good people over at PCMforless have already put their new G8 GT on a Dynojet for a few pulls. The first pull yielded 286.62 ponies and the second, after a bit of tuning, wrung the bell at 310.37 galloping horses. Factoring in drivetrain loss of about 15%, those numbers are (surprise!) right in line with the 361 horsepower that Pontiac is claiming for the G8 GT.
While over 300 horsepower is mighty impressive for a 30K-ish sport sedan, we'd be remiss if we didn't at least mention that the 2009 G8 GXP will be packing another 40 horsies underhood. Oh yeah... and a clutch. Check out a video of the full-pull after the jump, where you'll no doubt enjoy some of that glorious aural assault.
Thanks for the tip, Nick!
[Source: G8GT.com]Video:
New KITT Attack Mode revealed at Comic Con
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
First Drive: Maserati Quattroporte S in Europe
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
First Drive: 2009 Kia Borrego
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
wrussi @ Mar 19th 2008 10:05AM
what do they exactly mean by tuning?
RJ @ Mar 19th 2008 2:22PM
A couple ECU changes to adjust air/fuel ratio and timing, probably.
They need to let the engine loosen up a bit; it'l too new to show its true hp potential.
the 286hp they got is pretty poor considering LS1 F-bodies in the late 90's did over 300 on teh dyno. A manual would also help, as autos don't reproduce accurate readings on inertia based dynos (unless they can lock into the direct gear at low rpm).
Derek @ Mar 19th 2008 5:11PM
RJ: the 6sp auto has no direct gear. More important though is being able to get the torque converter locked at low rpm and high throttle (which the controller tends not to do) so you see what the engine makes, not the extra torque multiplication in the converter.
a_holdo @ Mar 19th 2008 10:36AM
My car has 227hp at the crank out of a 2 liter. 310 out of a 6 liter? Seems unimpressive at best.
IowaSuby @ Mar 19th 2008 10:40AM
I agree, you can get 300whp+ out of 2.5L subarus, you'd think a 6L would do much better. On top of that, how much does this car weigh?
tbss_in_the_D @ Mar 19th 2008 10:42AM
310 at the rear wheels...
361 at the crank
Andrew @ Mar 19th 2008 10:44AM
this car has something called torque. and lots of it.
unless that 2.0L is FI'd, it won't have anywhere near as much torque or the same torque curve.
BigRedSpecial @ Mar 19th 2008 10:59AM
Say it with me - T-U-R-B-O. Your 2.0 has one, this engine does not.
paul34 @ Mar 19th 2008 11:26AM
300 whp from a 2.5L NATURALLY-ASPIRATED boxer, huh? Wow, I have to see your engine... come over sometime.
John @ Mar 19th 2008 11:30AM
Yeah, because we all know the true measure of a car's performance is peak hp / liter.
When you catch up with the G8 at the next stop light make sure to tell him about your hp / liter, he will be impressed. Are all WRX drivers like this?
BigRedSpecial @ Mar 19th 2008 3:32PM
Want to compare Apples to Apples? GM's very own 2.0 turbo four makes 260hp, 260 torque(with a wide, usable powerband), is rock solid reliable, and uses less fuel doing it than your engine.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE subies(I wanted a WRX myself untill they uglied it up so bad), but youe engine isn't the be all end all.
Derek @ Mar 19th 2008 5:51PM
consider a few things:
assuming your 2.0 is running ~15psi boost, it is intaking closer to 4.0L at full throttle if you want to compare to a naturally aspirated engine.
217lb*ft from your turbo doesn't look so hot up against 385lb*ft from the LS3.
The LS3 also gets to peak hp 700rpm lower than Subaru. Stick in a larger cam to put the V8's peak hp up at 6000rpm and you're easily over 400hp. (430hp in Corvette)
18/25 EPA mpg (adjusted for 2008+ testing - http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm) isn't exceptional either and likely on par with the G8.
dan spalinger @ Mar 19th 2008 10:37AM
Still a Pontiac...still looks like the GTO...still $30K+...another stillborn product from GM...
Ashish @ Mar 19th 2008 10:50AM
"300whp+ out of 2.5L subarus, you'd think a 6L would do much better." lets talk stock. at stock setup its crank HP and not AWHP.
227hp at the crank out of a 2 liter. how abt the torque out of your 2 liter?
and why would you think so? Have you ever looked at the torque specs?
The 6L doesnt have to be revved the flip up to cross 300.
No forced induction. I concur longer engine life as well.
Again, why are we discussing bhp/L?
Some biker will join in and say my 0.6 L makes 100BHP? or 140BHP? yeah tight at 16000 rpm or so.
WHY are we going in this direction?
BigRedSpecial @ Mar 19th 2008 3:36PM
My 0.6L snowmobile makes 140hp at a relatively low 8200rpm:)
Got to love two strokes!
tenfifteen @ Mar 19th 2008 10:41AM
How exactly is a bell "wrung?" Rags are wrung out. Bells are rung.
jamey @ Mar 19th 2008 10:50AM
wow 40 horsepower in the gxp. If only my old fiero could have matched that...oh wait.
PAT @ Mar 19th 2008 10:54AM
I agree, what does "tuning" mean?
Please don't say your 2.0L is anywhere near equivalent, or even worth a mention here. 361HP is not much for a 6.0L, because they are only using about 50% of it's potential, I'm sure for fuel economy and so tree huggers don't get their panties in a wad. But guess what If you added all the crap you added to your 2.0L to get an amazing 227HP at the crank, to this 6.0L, you would shut up.
Ashish @ Mar 19th 2008 11:02AM
I have seen (they are not uncommon) 6L and 6.1L generating a lot more than 400...err wait 500..better yet 600HP.. and have seen some generating 800-1000.
No biggie there, atleast, not as big as a 2L generating 300 at the crank.
And then there's torque, I am sure 99% here atleast those with 2L have no idea what 450lb-ft really does to you at 20 or 80mph or 120mph.
600 is the new 400, 400 is the new 300.
veeeetaaach ...Oh yeah.
a_holdo @ Mar 19th 2008 11:16AM
My apologies. 361 hp on the G8. Still, whoop. ee.
Since you asked, my 2.0 liter is stock and the torque is 217. A simple turbo is the most "exotic" thing under the hood. My point is simply that in the year 2008, the mighty GM should be able to muster a more efficient (in both power and fuel economy) engine. But maybe that's just crazy talk.