Sam Parthemer wrote:
>
> 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
I don't have a scanner yet. Soon. Also, I have all the bolt-ons you
mentioned and more, just not the computer. I tried to get a printout by
rpm but it wouldn't work at the time. They said the dyno info is stored
so I can always get another printout. Alan S.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:12:11 EDT