5.0 Dyno Chart Compilation

[Esset]

Need to dyno in 1:1 gear. That would be 5th in the Tremec.

as far this topic discussed (https://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1478091) its not needed, or the differences should not be so significant

Sponsored

 

[GT Pony]

as far this topic discussed (https://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1478091) its not needed, or the differences should not be so significant

A manual transmission in the 1:1 gear has less gear engagement and therefore less mechanical HP loss which gives a little more RWHP.

Go run your car back-to-back a few times in 3rd, 4th and 5th to see the difference.

 

[ShadesOfBloo]

Mach1 2021, MT, dyno at 3th gear,
1 3/4" kooks headers with green cats,
h-pipe,
93oct tune.
423 WHp, 366 ft-lb

...thoughts?

3th gear? You should at least test in 4rd gear, man.

EDIT: I'm starting to think nobody gets the "4rd gear" joke.

 

[ShadesOfBloo]

Now that I've found this thread, I'm posting a baseline in case y'all need one more...

2020 GT PP1, 6-speed, tested in 3rd and 4th gears.
Stock, shortly after the first oil change.
93 octane, on a May afternoon so the weather wasn't hot yet.
419hp and 418.9 ft-lbs

The first pull was in 3rd gear. The shop technicians first said my 1:1 gear was 5th, but when I told them "No, it's 4th for this model year", they accepted it and moved on. I can't remember why we did the first pull in 3rd.

3rd gear gave us a measurement of 388hp and 348 ft-lbs, and right away I blurted out that it sucked.
They did the next 2 tests in 4rd gear, at my request, and we got better results right away,
except that the car thought it was going 150mph or whatever and cut off the fun at 6500rpm.

The 3rd gear test was still good for showing that the "peak" power is really part of a plateau that runs from 6000rpm (or less) to redline.

 

[Ruckus50gt]

I don’t have same graph, but 2020 pp2 (mt82) jlt intake, roush Xpipe , lund 93

 

[Platinum_5.0]

I suppose i'll repost my numbers since this thread seems to have come alive. Like the above poster numbers seem to be low compared to other whipple guys running similar setups.

Mods:

whipple stage 2
3.875 Pulley
132mm TB
Catless 2"LTH
Full CBE
Vortec BAP
Id1050
93 Lund tune

Yeah seems low but you are getting some serious knock up top looking at your graph. For reference I'm on the 3.7 pulley and seeing 10.5-11psi and did 690whp. Car trapped 138mph on that setting.

 

[RiceNChicken]

Yeah seems low but you are getting some serious knock up top looking at your graph. For reference I'm on the 3.7 pulley and seeing 10.5-11psi and did 690whp. Car trapped 138mph on that setting.

Exactly what it appears to be. I have been getting told from lund a couple other people that those are healthy numbers, others using octane boosters in their dynos etc, contrary to what i've been seeing from other similar setups. Honestly don't know if I should request a different tuner to look into the drop in power or take their word and live with the fact that I should be making more power than I am. Was your dyno done in SAE? Did you use boostane in your dyno run?

 

[Platinum_5.0]

Exactly what it appears to be. I have been getting told from lund a couple other people that those are healthy numbers, others using octane boosters in their dynos etc, contrary to what i've been seeing from other similar setups. Honestly don't know if I should request a different tuner to look into the drop in power or take their word and live with the fact that I should be making more power than I am. Was your dyno done in SAE? Did you use boostane in your dyno run?

It was SAE and no boostane or anything. Car pulls hard all the way. No knock.

 

[s550cano]

Put my box on the rollers tonight. Whipple Gen 4, 3.3 pulley, fore level 4 triple pump, e85, headers. Made some decent power!

 

[engineermike]

Yeah seems low but you are getting some serious knock up top looking at your graph. For reference I'm on the 3.7 pulley and seeing 10.5-11psi and did 690whp. Car trapped 138mph on that setting.

You car trapped 138 at 690 rwhp? Not doubting, but it seems high for the power.

 

[Platinum_5.0]

You car trapped 138 at 690 rwhp? Not doubting, but it seems high for the power.

Yup I've been hearing that non stop but that's what it trapped on a few different passes that day. I actually had two different tuners tuning the car out of curiosity in terms of some trans drivability issues I was having and on the same dyno session flipped the tune and ran them both on the dyno and my main tuner was 695whp actually and the second tuner was 680whp. I didn't run the second tuner at the 1/4 ever but I did run he's tune at an 1/8 mile no prep event, same DA and temperature basically and he was same 1/8 mile MPH of 107. I honestly hate the arguing that happens with some people, I ran the dyno, it made a number, I ran the track, it did 138. I have the slip posted up on here as well. Pump gas 93, no octane, full weight, LTH to a true 3 inch, no bottle necks at all and 3.7 pulley. I added E85 to the 3.7 pulley and ran consistent 142 - 143mph passes

 

[Platinum_5.0]

You car trapped 138 at 690 rwhp? Not doubting, but it seems high for the power.

Also I'm not trying to say you are trying to argue or anything, not at all but running at the track and the guys I've rolled raced have all accused me of lying about my HP and saying I'm on race gas or Boostane tune. I have a few videos posted up on youtube of me running a 605whp C5 and a 650whp CTS-V manual car and I beat them pretty bad. It just works. I don't know.

 

[Platinum_5.0]

You car trapped 138 at 690 rwhp? Not doubting, but it seems high for the power.

And the worst part? It weighs 4232LBS with me and a full tank. That just makes me even more of a liar when I say that.

 

[engineermike]

@Platinum_5.0 Hahaha no worries. I put down 710 on true 93 some time back at lower boost, timing, and in 6th. You and one other give me hope of reaching my goal of 140 on 93. Your car is running really good for sure.

 

[Platinum_5.0]

@Platinum_5.0 Hahaha no worries. I put down 710 on true 93 some time back at lower boost, timing, and in 6th. You and one other give me hope of reaching my goal of 140 on 93. Your car is running really good for sure.

710? Nice! Yes I was also in 6th as well just to clarify. The DA was 4000 that day and my 60-130 was a 6.5 but I've recently ran a 6.10 in much better DA of 1700 so It definitely has a 140 trap on true 93 in it...lol...I'm trying again next spring when the temp and DA is more favorable

Sponsored