83 Chevy

Well, I traveled eight miles on the dyno today.

The first run on the dyno was an attempt to get a baseline HP and TQ for a completely stock Vortec MAX with a brand new AC Delco paper air filter. We could not complete the dyno run because the truck has a speed governor that started pulling timing somewehere around 89 MPH. We were starting at 70 MPH in third and not getting very far before the timing was pulled. The results we were able to get were 263.0 HP at 4163 RPM and 332.4 TQ at 4159 RPM. Obviously the RPM's did not get high enough.

For the second run we abandoned HP and TQ and ran a 1/4 mile sprint. These numbers are not corrected for altitude like HP and TQ. I am at 4,500 feet here. Again this was run completely stock with new paper filter.
Results:
60' = 2.01 @ 31.8 MPH
330' = 6.00@ 56.0 MPH
660' = 9.52 @ 69.6 MPH
1000' = 12.68 @ 77.1 MPH
1/4 Mile = 15.40 @ 83.3 MPH

For the third run, I took out the AC Delco paper filter and dropped in a K&N stock replacement. It actually ran slower with the K&N in. Fluke? Who knows. The difference was in the first 60 feet, then It had more top end as evidenced by the terminal speed.
Results:
60' = 2.11 @ 31.8 MPH
330' = 6.11 @ 55.8 MPH
660' = 9.64 @ 70.1 MPH
1000' = 12.79 @ 77.3 MPH
1/4 Mile = 15.49 @ 83.4 MPH

For the fourth run, I left the K&N in but swapped the PCM's so I was running the Nelson unit. It fired right up and idled smooth to my surprise. I ran the truck for 5 minutes or so at idle prodding the throttle a few times, then ran an exercise on the Mustang dyno that had me speed up and slow down for another 5 minutes or so. Go time!
Results:
60' = 2.13 @ 31.7 MPH
330' = 6.01 @ 57.7 MPH
660' = 9.44 @ 72.3 MPH
1000' = 12.47 @ 80.2 MPH
1/4 Mile = 15.08 @ 85.6 MPH
I have to say I could hear the difference. It actually spun the tires on the dyno starting out and at the 1-2 shift.

The next run was a zero to sixty run - no changes. I posted a 6.78 second 0-60.

The next run was another attempt at HP and TQ, since I suspected that Nelson removed the governor. These values are "with WCF" which means they are corrected for weather and altitude. Again in third gear, starting from 70 MPH.
Results:
287.6 HP @ 5007 RPM at 106.8 MPH
320.2 TQ @ 4043 RPM at 85.0 MPH

So that is the data. Make your own conclusions. I think Nelson did a great job to knock more than four tenths off a quarter mile. I have been told (by you folks) that the tune will get better as I drive it more and the computer learns. I am already impressed

By the way, I used a weight of 5,450 pounds. This data is input into the computer when it computes sprint times. The dyno uses a magnetic braking system to simulate the weight of the vehicle as well as wind drag. It puts more braking force on the faster you go to simulate the resistance of the air. You have to tell the computer the type of vehicle so it knows what to use as a drag coefficient. It is pretty cool.

Mike

trever1t

iTrader: (14)

Good Job and thos #'s seem about right! Stock truck except for the tune? It;ll get stronger in the next week too!

xchevyx24

so u have less TQ with the tune and the k&n

83 Chevy

Yeah, I thought that was wierd. I am wondering If the transmission kicked down on that one. We tried from 55 once and it kicked down to 2nd which throws off the numbers. I may have got that run and the one that hit the governor mixed up. The RPM numbers looked about right so I thought that was the one that hit the gov. I will check the stack of dyno sheets and see if I can figure that out.

I do think it had more torque down low with the paper filter.

Hey, does anyone know why my oil life would go from 45% left to 80% left after switching out the PCM? I thought that was odd.

I drove it around a little tonight. It is definitely more responsive than with the stock PCM. I like it!

Mike

gonzo 6.2

iTrader: (8)

You compiled a lot of useful info to use as a base and a guide.You can certainly see an improvement.
What I dont agree with is your dyno ETs,my estimation is they are about .5 off because of the 4500ft elevation.

CHEVY6000VHO

iTrader: (2)

I agree about the dyno's track run.
My ECSB VHO Silverado ran a 14.3xx in the 1/4 with just a Nelson tune (93oct tune with 70% TM removed) and the Volant CAI kit, and factory exhaust. After the addition of the Corsa exhaust & a retune from Nelson (93 oct tune with 100% TM removed) , I could only muster a best run of 14.23x in the 1/4.
Though I had quite a bit more traction issues with the factory 20's with all TM removed and the Corsa exhaust. I had a few traction issues the first time out, but it didn't compared to the most recent track run with no TM.
I think the Dyno was holding back on real time data.
The best track times would be actually going to the track.
Nice info though.

Jim

gonzo 6.2

iTrader: (8)

His stock dyno ET was running what a SSS is at sea level,I live at elevation I know what it does to your power.Figure 3% loss of HP for every 1K ft. elevation running N/A

bigredexpress99

iTrader: (15)

the oil ife is calculated by the pcm....just change your oil, reset the life, and voila...back on track...

83 Chevy

It was the correct dyno sheet. There was a wierd "spike" in HP and TQ at the moment timing was pulled because I had hit the speed limiter. Don't ask me to explain because I have to idea why.

I would just throw out that test and go by the 1/4 mile sprints. I think they are going to be the most accurate measure of improvement (or lack of).

Mike