Re: Dyno run for the 4.7L

From: Shane Moseley (smoseley@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Sun Apr 09 2000 - 16:42:21 EDT

Next message: fawcett@uism.bu.edu: "Re: Simple Green Usage on Engine"
Previous message: Hemikota@aol.com: "Re: Different Drums on a 1993 2wd Dak..."
In reply to: Tim J Koth: "Dyno run for the 4.7L !!!!!!!"
Next in thread: Shari & Marty: "Re: Dyno run for the 4.7L"
Reply: Shari & Marty: "Re: Dyno run for the 4.7L"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Tim J Koth wrote:

> Shane, I think the numbers you posted for the 5.2 and 5.9 are crankshaft or
> flywheel dyno figures, not rear wheel dyno figures. Matts numbers were rear
> wheel figures for the 4.7 .......
>
>

You know - I'm pretty sure you are right. So just add in...what 15 percent more
for a manual and 20 percent for an auto?

That would put the 4.7L somewhere in between the 5.2L and 5.9L possibly.

Latr,

Shane

--
'96 IndyRam-HisIndy-MPI/TB/Pulleys/Coil/Wires/CompTAs
'96 IndyRam-HerIndy-numbered(#142)"Track Truck"
'74 Triple-Black Dodge Challenger Rallye 360 home-brew EFI R&D vehicle
'68 Black Corvette Convertible 427 (For Sale)

Next message: fawcett@uism.bu.edu: "Re: Simple Green Usage on Engine"
Previous message: Hemikota@aol.com: "Re: Different Drums on a 1993 2wd Dak..."
In reply to: Tim J Koth: "Dyno run for the 4.7L !!!!!!!"
Next in thread: Shari & Marty: "Re: Dyno run for the 4.7L"
Reply: Shari & Marty: "Re: Dyno run for the 4.7L"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:50:39 EDT