LQ4 cam only
#13
Thread Starter
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (13)
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,750
Likes: 0
From: jennings,louisiana
the guys who did my first tune put my truck on the rollers running off 7 cylinder & wuz more worried about the fuel curve then the miss! i heard it miss a couple of times but just thought it wuz part of the tuning process!
270hp/303tq horse peak still around 5300 r so!
270hp/303tq horse peak still around 5300 r so!
#15
Thread Starter
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (13)
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,750
Likes: 0
From: jennings,louisiana
i did! i got a live tune by Wheatley! i didnt know it missing till i try to drive it home! so i turned around & told them about it & they said they new it wuz missing but didnt know why! so when i got home i checked the plug wires & one wuz burnt & cut in 2 pieces!
#16
BUT, if the scales are different, which it looks like they are after staring at the dark, blurry picture a bit, they will cross somewhere different. That doesn't mean that the dyno is meaningless, it just means they scaled the graphs differently so to make a prettier output when actually put on paper.
#17
Thread Starter
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (13)
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,750
Likes: 0
From: jennings,louisiana
Not necessarily true. Assuming the hp scale on the left vertical axis and the torque scale on the right vertical axis are the same, then yes, the two plots should cross at 5252rpm.
BUT, if the scales are different, which it looks like they are after staring at the dark, blurry picture a bit, they will cross somewhere different. That doesn't mean that the dyno is meaningless, it just means they scaled the graphs differently so to make a prettier output when actually put on paper.
BUT, if the scales are different, which it looks like they are after staring at the dark, blurry picture a bit, they will cross somewhere different. That doesn't mean that the dyno is meaningless, it just means they scaled the graphs differently so to make a prettier output when actually put on paper.
#18
Well when I say better, I mean so you have two peaks relatively at the same vertical level. It just makes printing/viewing easier. I mean nothing about actually modifying the hp/torque output values from what they really are.
Likely the reasoning is because of the ~70 unit difference between your torque output and your hp output. A graph with equal scaling on both vertical axis would have seen your torque curve peaking way higher than that of your hp, and, to the average viewer, it would've looked weak-sauce.
Likely the reasoning is because of the ~70 unit difference between your torque output and your hp output. A graph with equal scaling on both vertical axis would have seen your torque curve peaking way higher than that of your hp, and, to the average viewer, it would've looked weak-sauce.
#19
Thread Starter
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (13)
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,750
Likes: 0
From: jennings,louisiana
Well when I say better, I mean so you have two peaks relatively at the same vertical level. It just makes printing/viewing easier. I mean nothing about actually modifying the hp/torque output values from what they really are.
Likely the reasoning is because of the ~70 unit difference between your torque output and your hp output. A graph with equal scaling on both vertical axis would have seen your torque curve peaking way higher than that of your hp, and, to the average viewer, it would've looked weak-sauce.
Likely the reasoning is because of the ~70 unit difference between your torque output and your hp output. A graph with equal scaling on both vertical axis would have seen your torque curve peaking way higher than that of your hp, and, to the average viewer, it would've looked weak-sauce.
#20
In short, don't lose any sleep over it. I don't like it when the vertical scales are different for hp and torque because I like to directly compare the respective curves of each, but oh well, it's how they did it. You just have a really torquey engine I guess.


