Re: RE: Re: 'L' Dyno numbers

From: Ryan Stewart (firebird@kymtnnet.org)
Date: Wed Feb 07 2001 - 01:14:07 EST


I thought that was more of the area.....but I said 320-335 as to not get
flamed to death again. Though that was still high I thought it would give a
slightly more realistic number without getting me burnt bad. It's a no-no to
say anything bad (or truthful) about Ls on here!

-Ryan
99 DA RC R/T
Gonna get flamed I am sure.

----- Original Message -----
From: <Viper450hpGTS@aol.com>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: DML: RE: Re: 'L' Dyno numbers

> In a message dated 2/6/2001 5:44:09 PM Central Standard Time,
> STLAURENTS@mctssa.usmc.mil writes:
>
> << A ten percent lost to the drive train? (SAE is 370?)
> >>
>
> That's B.S. plain and simple....... I've personally seen three different
> *stock* Ls dyno sheets from different sources and those three examples
were
> all in the 310-315 range......
>
> James
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:59:10 EDT