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

Radix 6.0 dyno @ 9-10psi

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 6, 2007 | 10:33 PM
  #1  
BLASTER's Avatar
Thread Starter
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,528
Likes: 0
From: bridgwater, nj
Default Radix 6.0 dyno @ 9-10psi

Changed pulleys and made a couple of pulls the other day.

Baseline: 231HP 275FT-LBS with 245/70/R16s
Radix @ 6/7#s: 306HP 350FT-LBS with 295/65/R17s
Radix @ 9/10#s: 335HP 380FT-LBS with 295/65/R17s



We made alot of pulls after the pulley change and I was up to this point before we got heat soaked. Actually went down in HP towards the end with seeing 10 lbs of boost becasue of the heat. Added some timing and gained power back even with the IATs up so I figure I would be above this had it been cooler.

On the street boost start at 7# and then builds steadily till 9#s Haven't seen 10#s on the street but the dyno operator to me we were hitting 10 # by the end. Anyone know what this would be caused by?

Still not where I want to be in terms of power but the truck has 75000 miles, 33" tires, clutch fan and 4LE80. Figured my gains are about 10HP/10FTLBS per # of boost. Looking to do some more mods to improve my power.

Last edited by BLASTER; Feb 6, 2007 at 10:39 PM.
Reply
Old Feb 6, 2007 | 10:39 PM
  #2  
RandomHero's Avatar
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (24)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,787
Likes: 1
From: Austin,TX Name:Mark
Default

what kind of truck was this on? Maybe I'm smoking crack but those numbers don't seem too impressive for 10lbs of boost.

EDIT- IF it was on that 6.0 then those numbers should be WAAY higher IMO. Who tuned the truck?
Reply
Old Feb 6, 2007 | 10:46 PM
  #3  
trever1t's Avatar
2nd fastest 5.3 ECSB
iTrader: (14)
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 26,690
Likes: 1
From: NorCal
Default

What cam are you running?
Reply
Old Feb 6, 2007 | 10:52 PM
  #4  
BLASTER's Avatar
Thread Starter
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,528
Likes: 0
From: bridgwater, nj
Default

Yep. 6.0L. I started out low on power and I've gone round and round with why I don't make the power other do.

I still have the stock cam.
Reply
Old Feb 7, 2007 | 01:06 AM
  #5  
Blown02Sierra's Avatar
TECH Enthusiast
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
From: Vegas
Default

somethings not right. i put down 320 w/ a radix 5.3 stock cam in a 4wd w/ 35's.
Reply
Old Feb 7, 2007 | 01:09 AM
  #6  
2004SSS's Avatar
TECH Addict
iTrader: (25)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,913
Likes: 0
From: southern california
Default

whats the timing curve look like? i can see the 80e killing some power but should be higher. what kind of dyno?
Reply
Old Feb 7, 2007 | 02:35 AM
  #7  
Posi12Bolt's Avatar
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (13)
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
From: Vacaville CA 707
Default

Originally Posted by BLASTER
Yep. 6.0L. I started out low on power and I've gone round and round with why I don't make the power other do.

I still have the stock cam.
oh wow...

My 6.0 made 330 rwhp with an M90 magna on it @ 1.5 psi

you should be WAYYYY higher....

~Brian
Reply
Old Feb 7, 2007 | 08:42 AM
  #8  
adam1803's Avatar
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (65)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 1
From: Tyndall AFB / Panama City, FL
Default

Yeah something is definetly wrong there. I realize its a turbo, but i put down 385/427 on a 6.0 with only 5# of boost through an 80e. Have you done a compression check lately?
Reply
Old Feb 7, 2007 | 05:18 PM
  #9  
BLASTER's Avatar
Thread Starter
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,528
Likes: 0
From: bridgwater, nj
Default

Originally Posted by adam1803
Yeah something is definetly wrong there. I realize its a turbo, but i put down 385/427 on a 6.0 with only 5# of boost through an 80e. Have you done a compression check lately?
Yep. 160 across the board. All cylinders were good.

MY 6.0 is the low compression motor and was only rated at 300 fwhp back in 2000. It also has iron heads which would contain the heat more.

Don't know if that would affect my gains but that is a difference I see from the newer engines. Kinda annoys me but I am left without a clue.
Reply
Old Feb 7, 2007 | 05:34 PM
  #10  
adam1803's Avatar
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (65)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 1
From: Tyndall AFB / Panama City, FL
Default

Originally Posted by BLASTER
Yep. 160 across the board. All cylinders were good.

MY 6.0 is the low compression motor and was only rated at 300 fwhp back in 2000. It also has iron heads which would contain the heat more.

Don't know if that would affect my gains but that is a difference I see from the newer engines. Kinda annoys me but I am left without a clue.
I also have an lq4 with iron heads
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:25 PM.