I got dyno-tuned!!!

[mikeinDE]

So I went to a local shop I have received good words about. I gave in and Invested in a Dyno-tune.
My "Before" numbers were 198hp and 183ft-lbs.....
And my "After" numbers are 217hp and 209ft-lbs.

Very impressed with how much more responsive and alive it feels.

If you are in the NJ,PA,DE area, I highly recommend these guys.
$350 for a dyno tune,
$250 for a street tune.

Welcome to Race Proven Motorsports

**Probably would have been nice of me to mention I have about 3" of suspension lift and was running 265/65/17's on the dyno...also with a K&N cold air intake and cat-back, dual exhaust....

 

[Wooluf1952]

Glad it worked out for you.

I do have a question (or 2):

Was that 198 hp at the rear wheels? Or calculated as the flywheel hp using the rear wheel reading. Was that 198 hp on a bone stock engine? IIRC, a stock engine was 200 hp at the flywheel. That would be about 160 hp at the rear wheels.

 

[mikeinDE]

Glad it worked out for you.

I do have a question (or 2):

Was that 198 hp at the rear wheels? Or calculated as the flywheel hp using the rear wheel reading. Was that 198 hp on a bone stock engine? IIRC, a stock engine was 200 hp at the flywheel. That would be about 160 hp at the rear wheels.

I had my friend there with me, and he said these numbers are "at the rear wheels" since it was on the dyno. (So that is as far as I know, and I can only go by what my friend was telling me). But now I am curious, I will have to check with him again to double-check...

As for your other question.....I have a K&N cold air intake and cat-back, dual exhaust.

 

[Pittdawg]

So I went to a local shop I have received good words about. I gave in and Invested in a Dyno-tune.
My "Before" numbers were 198hp and 183ft-lbs.....
And my "After" numbers are 217hp and 209ft-lbs.

Very impressed with how much more responsive and alive it feels.

If you are in the NJ,PA,DE area, I highly recommend these guys.
$350 for a dyno tune,
$250 for a street tune.

Welcome to Race Proven Motorsports

19hp and 26lbs of torque from a tune is awesome :wootwoot:

If the baseline numbers are accurate, since you are stock 285hp/277tq at the crank, 198hp/183tq at the wheels represents a whopping 31% drive train loss! Talk about inefficient drive train!

 

[mikeinDE]

19hp and 26lbs of torque from a tune is awesome :wootwoot:

If the baseline numbers are accurate, since you are stock 285hp/277tq at the crank, 198hp/183tq at the wheels represents a whopping 31% drive train loss! Talk about inefficient drive train!

yea the baseline numbers really dropped my jaw, in a way....
So what do you think 285 at the crank shuffles down to at the wheels?

 

[mikeinDE]

Here are some pics....


View attachment 23270
View attachment 23271
View attachment 23269

I will try to get a pic up of the dyno sheet soon, maybe tomorrow...

 

[Sparky]

19hp and 26lbs of torque from a tune is awesome :wootwoot:

If the baseline numbers are accurate, since you are stock 285hp/277tq at the crank, 198hp/183tq at the wheels represents a whopping 31% drive train loss! Talk about inefficient drive train!

Remember that 285/277 is the on paper new from the factory number. Actual numbers will vary vehicle to vehicle, plus factor in vehicle age, wear, elevation, air temperature, humidity, etc... Doesn't surprise me at all. The larger/heavier tires also will play a part.

 

[Pittdawg]

yea the baseline numbers really dropped my jaw, in a way....
So what do you think 285 at the crank shuffles down to at the wheels?

On avg., a 2wd auto should lose approx. 20% meaning you should have 227 to the wheels on a dyno. However, your numbers are not far off from what pmcforless posted on their stock run but they gained much less in their tune then you did in yours so overall you should be quite happy.

I'm just not sure if the over 30% drive train loss that appears routine in our vehicles is attributable more so to the tranny vs. the sheer size, weight and length of these vehicles. If it's the tranny, I wonder if a built version would transfer much more power to the wheels. It would definately be interesting to know one way or another.

 

[Wooluf1952]

Glad it worked out for you.

I do have a question (or 2):

Was that 198 hp at the rear wheels? Or calculated as the flywheel hp using the rear wheel reading. Was that 198 hp on a bone stock engine? IIRC, a stock engine was 200 hp at the flywheel. That would be about 160 hp at the rear wheels.

OK, now I feel stupid. I some how lost 85 hp. Sorry.

 

[limequat]

Good numbers, seem to be pretty consistent with other dynos. Goes to show you how much power the 4l60 consumes. An AR5 swap would "gain" another 20HP on top of that!

 

[Pittdawg]

Good numbers, seem to be pretty consistent with other dynos. Goes to show you how much power the 4l60 consumes. An AR5 swap would "gain" another 20HP on top of that!

Lime---You think a built 4l60e would consume less power or is it just an overall design limitation regardless of the internals?

Found a really good article btw regarding drivetrain loss:
http://www.modified.com/tech/modp-1005-drivetrain-power-loss/viewall.html

 

[limequat]

Lime---You think a built 4l60e would consume less power or is it just an overall design limitation regardless of the internals?

Found a really good article btw regarding drivetrain loss:
Drivetrain Power Loss - The 15% "Rule"- Modified Magazine

I would assume power consumption would be about the same. I actually used to work tangentially with transmissions for a living (I still know very little about them) and remember seeing some numbers circulated. Ford had tabulated in terms of horsepower, how much each of their transmissions consumed.
These numbers are fake, but it'd be something like:

AOD: 26 hp
70RE: 32 hp
100RE: 37 hp

Most of this is what it takes to power the pump, the rest being friction. Upgrading the trans, you may get more friction discs or different friction material, but none of that is relevant to the running friction or the pump.

Again, I don't know much about autos, so my answer to everything is "AR5 swap"

 

[mikeinDE]

Here's a couple pics of my sheet:

View attachment 23274
View attachment 23275

 

[limequat]

Here's a couple pics of my sheet:

View attachment 9800
View attachment 9801

Weird how the baseline dips in the middle like that. My baseline had a similar dip.

 

[Pittdawg]

Here's a couple pics of my sheet:

View attachment 9800
View attachment 9801

Can you zoom out so we can see the whole curve? Thanks. I'd like to compare it with the one from maganflow below:

 

[mikeinDE]

I sure can, just be patient with me, it might not be until tomorrow though....