Dynamometer Results & Comparisons Dyno Graphs | Power Comparisons | Dyno Truck List

Guess the numbers

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 4, 2015 | 09:48 PM
  #11  
THUNDERXx's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: Houston TX
Default

My truck bone stock made 261 at the wheels. With the small bolt ons it probably picked it up 30 hp. It should put out around 300 at the wheels is what I'm hoping.
Reply
Old Nov 4, 2015 | 11:44 PM
  #12  
George C....'s Avatar
Formerly ScreamingL
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,456
Likes: 5
From: From the 412
Default

Shorties dont flow anymore then stock

Cai dont always gain you power

Exhaust doesnt always gain, in some cases loses power

Also many will give you the STD numbers which read higher so reality your not over 300rwhp
Reply
Old Nov 13, 2015 | 01:44 PM
  #13  
THUNDERXx's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: Houston TX
Default

Dyno yesterday went great!! Truck made 305 at the wheels 310 torque. So its not just a "stock truck".
Reply
Old Nov 13, 2015 | 04:06 PM
  #14  
George C....'s Avatar
Formerly ScreamingL
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,456
Likes: 5
From: From the 412
Default

Gained 40rwhp


Post up sheet
Reply
Old Nov 13, 2015 | 04:16 PM
  #15  
THUNDERXx's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: Houston TX
Default




Reply
Old Nov 13, 2015 | 05:22 PM
  #16  
George C....'s Avatar
Formerly ScreamingL
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,456
Likes: 5
From: From the 412
Default

Sorry to bust chops but STD typically reads 20 higher then SAE

So 280s is about right
Reply
Old Nov 13, 2015 | 07:56 PM
  #17  
Fast355's Avatar
TECH Enthusiast
15 Year Member
Liked
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 642
Likes: 21
From: Euless, TX
Default

Originally Posted by George C....
Sorry to bust chops but STD typically reads 20 higher then SAE

So 280s is about right
Even that is generous! Put it on a properly calibrated Mustang dyno and it wouldn't crack 260.
Reply
Old Nov 14, 2015 | 04:44 PM
  #18  
blownescalade62's Avatar
Launching!
 
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 299
Likes: 1
Default Agree

Originally Posted by Fast355
Even that is generous! Put it on a properly calibrated Mustang dyno and it wouldn't crack 260.
+1 agree
Reply
Old Nov 14, 2015 | 06:59 PM
  #19  
TXsilverado's Avatar
Moderator
20 Year Member
Loved
Liked
Community Favorite
iTrader: (19)
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 18,371
Likes: 297
From: Humble Texas
Default

is it me, or do the newer 5.3 motors seem to have a broader torque curve than the earlier models ? i havent paid attention in a while.
Reply
Old Nov 14, 2015 | 09:03 PM
  #20  
Fast355's Avatar
TECH Enthusiast
15 Year Member
Liked
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 642
Likes: 21
From: Euless, TX
Default

Originally Posted by TXsilverado
is it me, or do the newer 5.3 motors seem to have a broader torque curve than the earlier models ? i havent paid attention in a while.
They certainly do have broader torque curve as they rightly should. They have better flowing heads, better intake, and a cam phaser that advances the cam at lower engine speeds and allows it to retard at higher engine speeds.

When I had my Nissan Titans I was amazed how much the phasing of the intake camshafts alone affected the powerband of the engine. The cam phaser moved the intake cams only, 30* advanced from the fully retarded 124* ICL to 94* ICL at lower engine speeds. There was a whole table in the PCM that controlled the phasing with RPM and Load. At part-throttle cruising speeds I found that retarding the intake cam considerably under light loads really helped the MPG. As soon as the throttle was tipped into I found it very helpful to advance the cam to create more torque.
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:48 AM.