The #'s still seem a bit off. The 250.8 hp sounds really high without
headers, computer, etc. etc. And the 229.1 lbs. sounds
a bit too low for a 5.9L.... The 5.9L is rated at 335 ft.lbs.
stock, times that by .82 for driveline losses, and you get 274.7 ft.
lbs. stock (to the ground). The stock HP of 250 times .8 gives you
about 205 hp (to the ground.
Your numbers indicate a 45.8 hp increase with only a few mods,
and a decrease of about 46 ft. lbs. of torque. Your truck is
an automatic, and the shift point PEAKS of an automatic should not
be considered into your figures... You might want to have them
print of a copy of HP / Torque from 1600-4800/4900 rpm in 50 rpm
increments. All of my runs have been this way. I then can take 'their'
graphs and look at my graphs (via excel) to get a good idea of what's
going on. Can you scan the dyno sheets??
Sam '95 SLT
>After further studying, I have to ammend the dyno #'s. I gave hp/ft.lb.
>PEAKS which take into consideration shift shock. The # sheet is also
>different in format from Swede's. Mine is a line graph, his is a list
by
>rpm/100's from 3,700 to 4,900. My line graph has the real hp/ft.lb. #'s
>in blue for pull # 1 & red for #2.
>Best pull was #1 with 250.8 hp/229.1 ft.lbs
>I thought 272/280 was a little high. I wish. Alan S.
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:12:11 EDT