Re: SC on R/T

From: Bruce Bridges (bbridges@alarismed.com)
Date: Thu Jul 23 1998 - 17:04:34 EDT


DML,
I may be able to add something here re: why does the truck make less HP??
In discussion with Level 10 transmissions they stated that the dodge truck
transmissions are "extremely conservative" due to the basic Truck
requirements of hauling large loads (1/4 ton 1/2 ton and 3/4 ton all have
the 46 RE I think), pulling tree stumps and getting mom to the grocery
store. Id be extremely interested in seeing a before and after shift kit
install rear wheel dyno result on the Dak to demonstrate the "need" for
these things...
Bruce
At 03:29 PM 7/23/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>I just got a response from a guy in Atlanta that has a DynoJet .
>>
>>He told me that he has put a Paxton on a '98 R/T and it raised the
>>rear-wheel HP from 190 to 330 HP .
>>
>>Now that's great and all , but here comes the dumb question :
>>
>>Is the 250 Peak HP that Chrysler claims the HP at the flywheel or what ?
>>
>>I thought they stopped that in the seventies and started doing them all at
>>the rear wheels ?
>>
>>I hate to sound stupid , but maybe I am ......
>>
>>Jack Hilton
>>
>>Black '98 R/T Club Cab
>>
>
>
>Jack
>
>In the 60's and 70's they used Gross power readings. These were readings
>without any accesories - water pump, fan, pulleys, etc. hooked up. Around
>1972 manufacturers changed to Net power readings. These power readings
>were taken with all the accessories hooked up - water pump, emissions
>stuff, pulleys, fan, etc. That's one reason why power levels seemed to
>drop. Manufacturers still use net readings today.
>
>Power at the real wheels is what is really important. Evidently, there is
>around a 60 hp drop in power due to friction in the transmission,
>driveshaft, and rearend on the Dak R/T. Two similar vehicles can have
>different rear wheel hp readings, though. BTW - Manual trans vehicles
>usually make more rear wheel power because they have less friction in the
>trans.
>
>191.7 is what Hot Rod got in their test on a Dak R/T CC with 1230 miles
>(rear wheel horsepower). Here's a list of others they tested on a Dynojet
>248C chassis dynamometer. All are 1998 models, except where noted.
>
> Horsepower Torque
>
>Cadillac Eldorado ETC Advertised 300 @ 6000rpm 295 @ 4400
> Observed 216.1 @ 5800rpm 222.0 @ 4400
>
>Potiac Firebird Trans Am 305 @ 5200 335 @ 4000
> 292.8 @ 5400 307.5 @ 4400
>
>Chevrolet Corvette 345 @ 5600 350 @ 4400
> 285.6 @ 5400 301.2 @ 4100
>
>Dodge Neon R/T 150 @ 6500 133 @ 5500
> 117.1 @ 6000 110.9 @ 2800
>
>Dakota Club Cab R/T 250 @ 4400 345 @ 3200
> 191.7 @ 4500 252.2 @ 3300
>
>Dodge Viper GTS 450 @ 5200 490 @ 3700
> 406.7 @ 5300 445.1 @ 4200
>
>1997 Ford Mustang GT 215 @ 4750 290 @ 3500
> 180.9 @ 4200 250.6 @ 3400
>
>Ford SVT Mustang Cobra 305 @ 5800 300 @ 4800
> 256.6 @ 5800 260.3 @ 4200
>
>Pontiac Grand Prix GTP 240 @ 5200 280 @ 3200
> 197.2 @ 5600 262.8 @ 2900
>
>
>Please note two things. First of all the 'Vette made less power than teh
>Trans Am. Also, for some reason, trucks usually always have less power on
>a chassis dyno than a similarly horse powered car. Why, I don't know. 20%
>is the average loss for any vehicle on a chassis dyno. Maybe the Trans Am
>is a ringer?!?!
>
>Brian
>
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:09:09 EDT