something weird I'm noticing about dyno charts
Sep 27, 2006 | 04:13 PM
#21
With our trucks we have alot of losses...for me number one my power is goin through a transfer case since im 4x4, we have big gearing, big wheels and tires, and heavy duty parts. This is all of course compared to a car with everything lighter and more efficient.
Sep 27, 2006 | 08:08 PM
#22
Thread Starter
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,842
Likes: 0
From: Dallas, North Mexico
Our rear's are smaller than that of mustangs and any moderately fast sports car (most go to a 12 bolt or 9")
Driveshaft isn't anything special.
T-case sucks up a bit, but not much when its engaged.
Driveshaft isn't anything special.
T-case sucks up a bit, but not much when its engaged.
Sep 28, 2006 | 12:17 PM
#25
Thread Starter
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,842
Likes: 0
From: Dallas, North Mexico
Originally Posted by Nick99Chevy
I've always seen 20-25% for an auto and around 15% for a manual.
20% is realistic, but for a large transmission- like a TH400 or 4L80E with the converter unlocked. 25% is extremely high for just about any transmission.
Sep 28, 2006 | 12:18 PM
#26
Thread Starter
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,842
Likes: 0
From: Dallas, North Mexico
Originally Posted by CaliChevyV8
I don't know what to tell you, in my opinion the numbers speak for themselves. The percentage of losses on say a corvette compared to a truck is less.
Sep 28, 2006 | 08:11 PM
#27
Originally Posted by SnakeOiler
You must look at the full picture. Example #1 is not tuned on the dyno, and if you notice is running way rich. If the a/f ratio was leaned out to 13:1, it could improve the numbers. Also, he's not running cats and nothing is mentioned about the rest of the exhaust back. He could be losing out on some power based on that.
Example#2 has been dyno tuned - it should be optimized because of this and this should be the best numbers based on the setup for that truck. If he had longtubes, I'm sure those numbers would be higher.
Of course, every package is different, lots of variables are involved, including the variances that have already been mentioned here. The only way really to compare two different trucks, such as you are doing, is if they were both on the same dyno on the same day.
Example#2 has been dyno tuned - it should be optimized because of this and this should be the best numbers based on the setup for that truck. If he had longtubes, I'm sure those numbers would be higher.
Of course, every package is different, lots of variables are involved, including the variances that have already been mentioned here. The only way really to compare two different trucks, such as you are doing, is if they were both on the same dyno on the same day.
If you read all my other threads on the subject, I am changing tuners...My mail order tune sucks, and I am unhappy with it.
Also my timeslips are quite a bit quicker than the other one being compared.
The guy on the dyno told me I should see better numbers when my truck gets up in the 12k mile range. That wont be for a while though
Sep 28, 2006 | 08:57 PM
#30
Thread Starter
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,842
Likes: 0
From: Dallas, North Mexico
I'm so glad I got bryans tuning (PCMfoLESS) aside from stellar gas milage (so good HE doubts it), I've had zero problems in 5 tunes for 5 engines. Actually, I had ONE problem, the shifts were a bit too hard from 1-2, but then I realized the ATF was slightly overfilled. Regardless, I had a new pcm within a day or two.
Was your truck more or less stock when you got it? Did it know only during WOT or at part throttle as well? What kind of tuning (how agressive) did you go with?
Was your truck more or less stock when you got it? Did it know only during WOT or at part throttle as well? What kind of tuning (how agressive) did you go with?