"Paul.Tomlinson" <Paul.Tomlinson@gov.yk.ca> wrote:
: The thing that always gets me is you see these incredible HP and TQ figures
: from Chevy but any articles I've read that actually put the trucks on a dyno
: show quite a bit lower figures hitting the road in comparison to Dodge and
: Ford. I know when they compared diesels a couple issues ago in Truck Trend
: that the new GM diesel actually was lower than the Dodge and the Ford,
: especially in the ranges where trucks tend to work. Before that Truck Trend
: compared the gas V-8's and again the Chev was quite a bit lower than
: advertised. So either GM has some incredible driveline loses, or they are
: fudging their figures a wee bit
Heh heh heh! Yeah, that's for sure. I was about to post something along
the lines of "don't forget to subtract about 30 30944669636770862754365499681275096772096448310502834499027563233352175763432476560080828763144888251703239439794226325324156003717057799703554444902644270292738121421934857767121322214875373297919656538128100127193757604166841693266594353715900514217110932553728.000000rom those numbers for
the standard "chebby dreamland correction factor"... ;-) Frankly, I
wouldn't trust *any* number Chevy spits out. Put 'er on a dyno and I'll
read the curve with my own two eyes, thanks! :-)
---Jon-
.---- Jon Steiger ------- jon@dakota-truck.net or jon@jonsteiger.com -----. | Affiliations: AOPA, DoD, EAA, NMA, NRA, SPA, USUA; Rec & UL Pilot - SEL | | '92 Ram 150 4x4 V8, '96 Dakota V8, '96 Intruder 1400, '96 FireFly 447 | `------------------------------------------ http://www.jonsteiger.com ----'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:02:04 EDT