quote Originally posted by Leafy: Typically speaking, as a rule of thumb based on MILLIONS of front wheel drive dyno pulls, there should be an expected power loss of about10 to 15% at the wheels. It then is expected that, if an engine is rated at around 330 at the crank, it should be putting down at least 280 at the wheels. You are correct as these are only estimates, and no I don't know the variables GM put on the engine... Speculatively putting down 243 at the wheels is a low number compared to the 345 at the crank. That either means that GM overrated the ZZ3, or the dyno's correction factor was WAY off.

Typically speaking
rule of thumb
based on ____________
expected power loss
should be putting down

Sounds like a lot of bench racing. If someone was making HP claims based on that, you'd be screaming for dyno slips. Instead someone provides a dyno slip and you complain about the factory rated HP.

If you're going to based your 15% guess on "MILLIONS of front wheel drive dyno pulls" I'm sure you can provide several to back up your claim. Of course, to prove your point, you'll need both engine dyno and chassis dyno results to determine the actual HP loss through the drivetrain.

You don't get it both ways. If you want to quote fact, then you can quote 2 things - ZZ3 was factory rated at 345 HP and on one day in one specific car it put down about 240 RWHP. That's fact.

But people have to have something to complain about, I guess.

my only suspicion of the low horsepower ratings on V8 fiero's is the very limited selection on quality manifolds and headers, which can really make or break the flow, one of the biggest factors in power output, these high performance crate motors are dynoed using the best tune on carbs and full tuned length headers, so a set of Sanderson's can really hinder that rating, and if someone decide to run a TPI, will slow down the high rpm intake flow, but still provide good low end torque. And even with the caddy making less power, I've seen them dyno in a few videos around 350whp in stock configuration, but a RWD vehicle can see more parasitic loss then FWD configuration. just so everyone takes into account the clearances need for the manifolds on fieros, it can really destroy the upper rpms where those good hp numbers are made.

------------------
PROJECT 1986 GT Stormbringer

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Typically speaking rule of thumb based on ____________ expected power loss should be putting down Sounds like a lot of bench racing. If someone was making HP claims based on that, you'd be screaming for dyno slips. Instead someone provides a dyno slip and you complain about the factory rated HP. If you're going to based your 15% guess on "MILLIONS of front wheel drive dyno pulls" I'm sure you can provide several to back up your claim. Of course, to prove your point, you'll need both engine dyno and chassis dyno results to determine the actual HP loss through the drivetrain. You don't get it both ways. If you want to quote fact, then you can quote 2 things - ZZ3 was factory rated at 345 HP and on one day in one specific car it put down about 240 RWHP. That's fact. But people have to have something to complain about, I guess.

If I were bench racing, we would be talking about 1/4 Mile times and MPH possibilities, not estimated Wheel, and crank HP.

I'm not disputing fact. But how true is GM's 345 hp claim when my Cobalt SS Supercharged is rated at 205hp FROM GM, and it dynoed at 213 at the wheels?

Companies lie about numbers all the time, up or down. Am I possibly calling anyone but GM a liar here?

If you don't believe the 15% number I'm throwing at you, why don't you google "Drivetrain Loss" in which you will find my MILLIONS of reports of people explaining drivetrain loss ranging from 10 to even 20 percent depending on FWD, FRWD, Auto and manual applications, with 15% being the happy medium people like to talk about. There is no constant, nor when I was breaking down what exactly that engine should run was I quoting exact numbers.

On a side note, It's great to see everyone hit the dyno, so that we could see what kind of numbers these things put out. It's also great to see diversity, seeing everyone come together with their different setups and engines and strutting their stuff.

Regardless, The only thing I really see as skewed here is the dyno correction factor... I would hope and expect that All the engines tested would have had better results than they did, from the 3.4 all the way to the 3.8 Turbo, especially at sea level.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Which series of engine did Archie have? And did I read correctly that it's running through a 6-speed?

Yeah, it was just a SBC with a loud exhaust & a FlushMaster 3000 carb.

It did have the G6 6-speed as did all the other cars in the V-8 Archie display area.

Archie

quote Originally posted by Leafy: I'm not disputing fact. But how true is GM's 345 hp claim when my Cobalt SS Supercharged is rated at 205hp FROM GM, and it dynoed at 213 at the wheels? Companies lie about numbers all the time, up or down. Am I possibly calling anyone but GM a liar here?

http://www.hotrod.com/techa...2_small_block_build/
Correction factors. Most consumer dynos use SAE J-607 correction factor (also known as STP - Standard Temperature and Pressure) which corrects the test data to 60-degree-F air and 29.23 in-Hg barometric pressure.

Most OE manufacturers use SAE J-1349 which adjusts the prevailing test conditions to 77-degree-F ambient air temperature and 29.92 in-Hg barometric pressure.

In the LS2 example from the link I quoted:
"Interestingly, in its stock, baseline configuration, the LS2 made exactly 400 hp at 6,000 rpm and 398 lb-ft of torque at 4,400 using the SAE J-1349 factor, right on par with its official GM rating. Converting to STP correction numbers equates to 422 hp and 418 lb-ft. That’s a substantial difference, but the point we want to make is that GM is not underrating its engines, it’s just rating them differently than most magazine readers are used to seeing."

quote Originally posted by Leafy: If you don't believe the 15% number I'm throwing at you, why don't you google "Drivetrain Loss" in which you will find my MILLIONS of reports of people explaining drivetrain loss ranging from 10 to even 20 percent depending on FWD, FRWD, Auto and manual applications, with 15% being the happy medium people like to talk about. There is no constant, nor when I was breaking down what exactly that engine should run was I quoting exact numbers.

When I googled "Drivetrain Loss" I got about 11,900 hits. How do you account for your MILLIONS figure being over 99% off?

No, I'm not actually busting your chops on this - but I'm trying to point out how you, and others, will quote some emperical data, then throw in your own rules of thumb and assumptions and come to an entirely new conclusion. If an engineer tried that, they'd be laughed right out of a job. If you want to talk measured data, do so, but leave your assumptions out of it, or at least recognize that your assumptions may not have any correlation to the data you're talking about, and every assumption introduces more uncertainty and error into your new conclusions.

Just like the correction factors. People automatically say GM underrates their engines. They're taking partial data and making erroneous conclusions.

If you're going to allow those assumptions, then allow them for everyone. But if someone with a V8 makes an assumption, you can bet people will come out of the woodwork screaming for proof. Let's keep the same rules for everyone, mkay?

Backtracking some to my original comment, GM calls the ZZ3 a 345 HP engine. Just like the LS1 is 350 HP (in the GTO or Vette) and the LS2 is 400 HP.

If someone says they have a 400 HP LS2, do you immediately call and demand a dyno sheet? Or do you just accept that they are quoting the factory figures?

Sure, his dyno results show about a 30% discrepancy between rated HP and RWHP. The next question becomes where's the 30% going? To answer that, you need to know the actual driveline loss, the correction factor GM used as well as the one the dyno used, etc. Given that a crate engine won't make the exact same power as installed in every different vehicle, some discrepancy should be expected. Then you have to figure in tuning, etc.

Let's just take the dyno results for what they are - a good comparison of some swaps on that day. Without further tuning or testing, that's only one data point, so it's really not much more than a starting point.

I would have loved to see Alex4mula dyno his car, since he's got a recent dyno sheet from another dyno. It would be interesting to see how close his figures would have matched up.

quote Originally posted by Leafy: Typically speaking, as a rule of thumb based on MILLIONS of front wheel drive dyno pulls, there should be an expected power loss of about10 to 15% at the wheels. It then is expected that, if an engine is rated at around 330 at the crank, it should be putting down at least 280 at the wheels. You are correct as these are only estimates, and no I don't know the variables GM put on the engine... Speculatively putting down 243 at the wheels is a low number compared to the 345 at the crank. That either means that GM overrated the ZZ3, or the dyno's correction factor was WAY off.

Your main error here is assuming that the engine in the Fiero has the exact same configuration as the engine that made 345hp at GM. You can't take that 345hp unless you use in your car the same exhaust, intake and tune. Long tube headers can make a 20hp difference. Bad carb tune can make 3-20hp difference. So your whole calculation is wrong to begin with saying you should expect 345 - 15%.

When you get a GM car from factory it is tuned to mfg specs. Go dyno it and you will get minimal variance. When you slap a long block with an intake, some headers and a carb it is just the beginning. Throw in fuel injection with a mail order chip and is the same thing. I wish I could be there with my car also to set a reference. But then I have spent many many hours tuning the AFR on my car and then at the end some dyno tuning. Do that to any of these V8 cars (I assume most haven't) and I bet they can gain 20-30hp easily.

quote Originally posted by Archie: ....all the other cars in the V-8 Archie display area. Archie

That display area is where I spent most of my time hanging out. What a great collection of cars.

This thread proves you can't please everybody. People complain about the V8s not going to the dyno, and now they are complaining that the RWHP is too low. Sheesh.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: When I googled "Drivetrain Loss" I got about 11,900 hits. How do you account for your MILLIONS figure being over 99% off? No, I'm not actually busting your chops on this - but I'm trying to point out how you, and others, will quote some emperical data, then throw in your own rules of thumb and assumptions and come to an entirely new conclusion. If an engineer tried that, they'd be laughed right out of a job. If you want to talk measured data, do so, but leave your assumptions out of it, or at least recognize that your assumptions may not have any correlation to the data you're talking about, and every assumption introduces more uncertainty and error into your new conclusions. Just like the correction factors. People automatically say GM underrates their engines. They're taking partial data and making erroneous conclusions. If you're going to allow those assumptions, then allow them for everyone. But if someone with a V8 makes an assumption, you can bet people will come out of the woodwork screaming for proof. Let's keep the same rules for everyone, mkay? Backtracking some to my original comment, GM calls the ZZ3 a 345 HP engine. Just like the LS1 is 350 HP (in the GTO or Vette) and the LS2 is 400 HP. If someone says they have a 400 HP LS2, do you immediately call and demand a dyno sheet? Or do you just accept that they are quoting the factory figures? Sure, his dyno results show about a 30% discrepancy between rated HP and RWHP. The next question becomes where's the 30% going? To answer that, you need to know the actual driveline loss, the correction factor GM used as well as the one the dyno used, etc. Given that a crate engine won't make the exact same power as installed in every different vehicle, some discrepancy should be expected. Then you have to figure in tuning, etc. Let's just take the dyno results for what they are - a good comparison of some swaps on that day. Without further tuning or testing, that's only one data point, so it's really not much more than a starting point. I would have loved to see Alex4mula dyno his car, since he's got a recent dyno sheet from another dyno. It would be interesting to see how close his figures would have matched up.

When I read this I basically see you supporting my arguement that my magical number of 15 is not an exact science, but then arguing it back to me? 15% Drivetrain loss is a good estimate, or educated guess to go by when you're talking drivetrain loss... without pertaining towards other variables such as temperature, air density, etc. It's called an educated guess of what SHOULD happen based on MILLIONS ( I say millions again, to iterate the fact that you have to be a fool to think there wasn't implied exageration on my part with that number, and your persnickety attitude doesn't help your cause) of dyno runs taken. It varys... but if you were to go up to your dyno guy, ask him "Typically sir, what is the estimated percentage of discrepancy between crank hp and wheel hp on a FWD car based on what you dyno everyday?" and most likely he will say to you " Well most people say it's around 15%, but it varies from car to car based on the different variables each car brings to the table."

If it's a pet peeve of yours that everyone be exact, then I cannot help you... I'm no engineer, but I've been around a dyno a few times, asked a few questions, read a few things and have come to the conclusions stated above that it's ok to guesstimate.

As far as GM underrating engines, it goes the other way too. Lets look at Ford and the 99 Mustang Cobra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang

"While the Cobra claimed 320 hp (239 kW), some magazines and owners proved otherwise. 5.0 Mustangs and Super Fords claimed that it actually exceeded the torque rating, but didn't quite match the power rating. Ford responded to complaints by issuing a recall on the 1999 model Cobras, which were given computer, intake, and exhaust improvements, to match the original claim of 320 hp. As a result, the Cobra production was halted in 2000 (except the limited Cobra R) while the company was developing new parts for the missing power. The changes were incorporated into the 2001 Cobra, which could achieve 1/4 mile times in the lower to mid-13 second range."

It's true, manufacturers rate differently than one another... it's the excuse that manufacturer's take so they can bend the rules in their favor. Most of the time they will rate to benefit themselves, boost sales, stay in a lower insurance bracket, that sort of thing. It works both ways. This time, a magazine rolls out their equipment, and proves Ford wrong... is it then just a different SAE standard?

quote Originally posted by Alex4mula: Your main error here is assuming that the engine in the Fiero has the exact same configuration as the engine that made 345hp at GM. You can't take that 345hp unless you use in your car the same exhaust, intake and tune. Long tube headers can make a 20hp difference. Bad carb tune can make 3-20hp difference. So your whole calculation is wrong to begin with saying you should expect 345 - 15%. When you get a GM car from factory it is tuned to mfg specs. Go dyno it and you will get minimal variance. When you slap a long block with an intake, some headers and a carb it is just the beginning. Throw in fuel injection with a mail order chip and is the same thing. I wish I could be there with my car also to set a reference. But then I have spent many many hours tuning the AFR on my car and then at the end some dyno tuning. Do that to any of these V8 cars (I assume most haven't) and I bet they can gain 20-30hp easily.

Alex, you are correct. I didn't take those variables into account. Having said that, this is why 15% is only an estimate... that it's still alot of discrepancy. More importantly though, ALL numbers on that dyno to me, were quite low, and The Fiero's front wheel drivetrain configuration, should be one of the more Ideal drivetrain configurations with less loss through the system.

Anyways, My original post on this was to back up the discrepancy questions between the 345 crank number, and the low, Wheel hp number. With all the numbers, quite low to what I and I know alot of other people expected, it's safe to say that it was probably the dyno, and not the cars, that produced this large gap. I personally think that ALL the cars who dynoed, should be pulling stronger numbers and it would be interesting to see someone from this group go find another dyno, just so we can see if at all there would be a difference. I personally know many people in the 4 banger world who would laugh and be amazed at how low these numbers are, who are running from 160- 425hp at the wheels.

I'm not trying to rag on anyone at all, so please don't feel offended if I think your results are low...

But then again, don't take my word for it, I'm just guessing.

[This message has been edited by Leafy (edited 03-28-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Some related reading, if anyone is interested: The absurdity of fixed percentage drivetrain loss Dyno Thoughts and HP Losses "Be aware that SAE correction factors do not apply to turbocharged engines! If your dyno sheet lists SAE corrected HP, ignore it as it is incorrect. You are better off getting an idea of where you stand by looking at observed hp with a turbo engine." "Chassis dynos are great tuning aids but they only give a approximation of power output as some of the important variables are not accurately controlled. Certain magazines seem to think that results obtained from chassis dynos are the gospel. They are not. In one recent independent test, hp figures varied by 11% simply by doing the runs in different gears and in another test, results varied by almost 4 % by doing the runs with a different wheel/tire combination. Tire alignment has been shown to affect results up to 3% as well. Note that Engine hp DID NOT change here yet the dyno recorded an increase in hp at the wheels. "

Because inertial losses change the RWHP output in different gears. For example, taking a dyno run in 1st gear is stupid, because the acceleration of the drivetrain is huge. A lot of power goes into accelerating it instead of to the ground. Big reason why two identical cars, one with an aluminum flywheel, and one with a steel flywheel will not run the same 1/4, or even dyno the same. (esp in lower gears)

The getrag 5 speed has a 10-15% loss.

Autos are a different story. My 4t80e has 3 different fluid pumps in it, and you'd better believe they all are robbing power. Not to mention all the added machinery. Stock, losses are 23-28%.

Flat percentage losses aren't perfectly accurate. There is a fixed HP loss by things like pumps. There is a variable (%) loss by things like gears. More transmitted power means more friction, means more heat... which is a power loss. So in reality as the power goes up, the percentage loss will probably go down. Maybe at 100hp you are losing 15%, but at 300hp you are losing 12%. This is all just anecdotal evidence from my standpoint. I've never tested things back to back, and I doubt anybody else has either.

One way to find out your loss is to do this "negative hp dyno test", where you do some kind of coast down to measure the drivetrain losses. Most dyno shops can do this. Now that I know it exists, I'd like to try it.

quote Originally posted by Alex4mula: Your main error here is assuming that the engine in the Fiero has the exact same configuration as the engine that made 345hp at GM. You can't take that 345hp unless you use in your car the same exhaust, intake and tune. Long tube headers can make a 20hp difference. Bad carb tune can make 3-20hp difference. So your whole calculation is wrong to begin with saying you should expect 345 - 15%.

I could see a 20-50hp difference, But I even think the 100 rwhp is a huge loss as well.
Not only that, But the 3.4L DOHC engine and the 3800SC dyno's also seemed on the low side.

As for raings:
The thing is GM (and others) generally use a single engine to check rating. The thing is production engines (and crate engines) are built on a production line. So you have tolerences that vary which can cause the engines output to vary. Example: a Fiero V-6 is rated at 140 hp, If you were to take 10 Fiero's with brand new 2.8L engines in them chances are no two engines would have the exact same horsepower. One may be at 145 and another may be 138.

I am sure that driveline loss and difference's in set-ups also vary the output as well. But a ZZ3 rated at 345hp only getting 240 rwhp (30% loss) seems to be way off. My ZZ4 is rated at 355 and I dyno'd 309 rwhp with a 4-spd manual trans. That is about a 13% loss.
My 3.4L carb'd engine dyno'd 197 and it was calculated th have around a 17% driveline loss with an automatic transaxle.

I just ran a quick check and even the 3.4L DOHC engine had a 30% loss as well. The 3800SC has a 36% loss but it was noted that there were other problems with it.
Considering other engines also have nearly 30% loss as well, I would suspect the dyno was either off or the correction factor was incorrect.
But I wasn't there so it is all pretty much speculation. It would be interesting if someone who had their car dyno'd at D7 could take it to another shop and see what it reads.

[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 03-28-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Oreif: .. It would be interesting if someone who had their car dyno'd at D7 could take it to another shop and see what it reads.

Bring it to my local dyno and I'll pay half of it if it is a V8

quote Originally posted by Leafy: This time, a magazine rolls out their equipment, and proves Ford wrong... is it then just a different SAE standard?

Well that depends on whether or not they're all using the same SAE standard, now doesn't it? That's the whole point about having standards - so you can compare against a level playing field.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 03-28-2007).]

I appologize that I wasn't able to make it to the dyno event (even though mine is merely a 2.8 V6 with Edelbrock intake manifold and a Holley carb). I was gonna dyno my 85 autocrosser (seen at last year's show only - 2006 - it was the junky one with the hood leaning up against the front of it) but had to take it up to North Florida for a while so that I could bring home my L67 project. Having one more Fiero in front of the house would have attracted too much attention from the code enforcement officers as well as the wife. So I had no choice...

Thanks to those that organized it. I wish I could have been there.

Chuck

quote Originally posted by Oreif: It would be interesting if someone who had their car dyno'd at D7 could take it to another shop and see what it reads.

I made the appointment yesterday.

I've got mine scheduled for 9am Friday morning.

It's a Dyno Jet & I've not changed anything on my car since driving it back from Daytona. I did have some problems with the Roller Rocker nut locks on both the trip down & back and a few of the rockers had to be adjusted on the trip. So I have changed the locks but that's all.

Archie

[This message has been edited by Archie (edited 03-28-2007).]

I accidently started a new thread and I meant to post it here. Sorry for the double post. Here it is:

You know, I'm really starting to get tired of this BS. Where were all you so called "experts" at Daytona? I'm really tired of all you psuedo-know-it-alls that knock almost everything that Fiero people try to do to make Fieros fun for everyone including YOU! What's with you guys anyway? Why don't you come out and participate and provide your expertise real time? - it would certainly be appreciated. I have never in my life had an engine dyno'd and I'm 64, but I thought this was interesting and a lot of fun - period. I really don't give a fat rat's hairy butt if a stock 4 cylinder out dyno's my SBC. I've had 2 3800s, a 4.9. a 2.8, and my V8 Archie SBC ZZ3. I loved every one of them. I drive what I like and I like what I drive AND I like all the other Fieros that guys put their time and blood into. Why can't you guys be CONstructive? If you know so much, why not come out and show us how to do it?

------------------

Tom Corey
Melbourne, FL
87 Green T-Top GT 5Spd SBC ZZ3 V8 - NOS

quote Originally posted by Tom Corey: I accidently started a new thread and I meant to post it here. Sorry for the double post. Here it is: You know, I'm really starting to get tired of this BS. Where were all you so called "experts" at Daytona? I'm really tired of all you psuedo-know-it-alls that knock almost everything that Fiero people try to do to make Fieros fun for everyone including YOU! What's with you guys anyway? Why don't you come out and participate and provide your expertise real time? - it would certainly be appreciated. I have never in my life had an engine dyno'd and I'm 64, but I thought this was interesting and a lot of fun - period. I really don't give a fat rat's hairy butt if a stock 4 cylinder out dyno's my SBC. I've had 2 3800s, a 4.9. a 2.8, and my V8 Archie SBC ZZ3. I loved every one of them. I drive what I like and I like what I drive AND I like all the other Fieros that guys put their time and blood into. Why can't you guys be CONstructive? If you know so much, why not come out and show us how to do it?

Hey man I said don't take offense, it's just a discussion, not anything you have done wrong. Some of us live so far away that Daytona is just not in the cards.

quote Originally posted by Alex4mula: That is not the problem. Everybody needs to read and understand that when GM rates a crate engine at certain HP (345hp for a zz3, 355hp for a ZZ4, etc.) it does so with certain intake, carb, headers and tune to maximize the output. When you change from that then most probable your HP will move down. For example some 1 5/8" long tube headers are no match for 1 1/2" shorty headers. Maybe the carb is not tuned like GM engineers will do at their dyno. Maybe you are using smaller exhaust pipe. Etc. etc. All that makes the hp/tq numbers to be usually lower. Key item here is to have a baseline and if you want (& have the $$) then adjust and change things to improve. It does not happens by itself.

DING DING DING!! GM probibly rates the motor on an engine dyno using open long tube headers and no accessories. Add accessories, shorty headers, crush bent exhaust, hot air intake and a bad carb tune and you can easily see a 100hp loss. Tune can make or break a motor. A tune on a dyno with a WBO2 can make a lot of hp.

Props to everyone that went to the dyno.

quote Originally posted by crzyone: DING DING DING!! GM probibly rates the motor on an engine dyno using open long tube headers and no accessories. Add accessories, shorty headers, crush bent exhaust, hot air intake and a bad carb tune and you can easily see a 100hp loss. Tune can make or break a motor. A tune on a dyno with a WBO2 can make a lot of hp. Props to everyone that went to the dyno.

True, that's why you dyno, there is no substitute for real data. Ideally, you would want to tune and dyno on the same machine repeatedly so you can see the effects of your modifications. The quoted HP on a crate motor should be taken with a grain of salt.

One of the biggest factors is having your engine tuned correclty. Did they have a WB02 sensor for all the runs? This and timing can lead to big gains or losses. With my 3.4l DOHC turbo car, I have gained over 100 WHP with fuel tuning and timing running the same boost level. Last year's 387 WHP was with ~13 psi of boost. I am hoping to put down over 400 with everything tuned and the boost up to 15 psi. 420 WHP should be attainable.

quote Originally posted by Alex4mula: Bring it to my local dyno and I'll pay half of it if it is a V8

I will take you on your offer....LOL

JG

Like Tom says - I love my SBC. Yeah it could be tunned a lot better - and would probably get up closer to the 270 mark. Does it treally matter to me? From a good burn POV yes, from a number on a piece of paper - not a bit. Headers would make a big difference too - but I spent every nickel I had to get my car to where it is. If everything was perfect first time out I'd have nothing left to do!! And Tom, you are lucky mine was running so rich or I woulda had a free meal! I'll getcha at the D8!

Dave

Oreif made my point perfectly. I didn't know the last time I posted that most, if not all, the cars dyno'd had a similar 30+% inconsistency in their results. Regardless, my original point was that if Tom's engine was rated at 345hp and putting 240ish, then its not an 345hp engine (as the evidence shows), either because it simply does not make that much power or because it is running wrong and needs to be fixed. I postulated, in an attempt to be helpful, that the later may be the case.

quote Originally posted by Tom Corey: I accidently started a new thread and I meant to post it here. Sorry for the double post. Here it is: You know, I'm really starting to get tired of this BS. Where were all you so called "experts" at Daytona? I'm really tired of all you psuedo-know-it-alls that knock almost everything that Fiero people try to do to make Fieros fun for everyone including YOU! What's with you guys anyway? Why don't you come out and participate and provide your expertise real time? - it would certainly be appreciated. I have never in my life had an engine dyno'd and I'm 64, but I thought this was interesting and a lot of fun - period. I really don't give a fat rat's hairy butt if a stock 4 cylinder out dyno's my SBC. I've had 2 3800s, a 4.9. a 2.8, and my V8 Archie SBC ZZ3. I loved every one of them. I drive what I like and I like what I drive AND I like all the other Fieros that guys put their time and blood into. Why can't you guys be CONstructive? If you know so much, why not come out and show us how to do it?

I hope my post wasn't offensive, I have nothing against v8's and nothing against fieros, i own a fiero. I wa sjust making an observation about the dynos ive seen for v8 fieros and how they are most usually lower than expected.

[This message has been edited by FieroWannaBe (edited 03-29-2007).]

Because my car did not make it to Daytona this year, I would like to enter my dyno runs by proxy... :-)
Here is the lowest boost base run from today... about 5 lb boost...



Anyone want to see one of the higher boost runs?
Chuck

quote Originally posted by MotorTV: Anyone want to see one of the higher boost runs? Chuck

yes

quote Originally posted by Zac88GT: yes

Thats it? Just "yes"? No coments about this run? how disapointing,,,,,
Chuck

Allright the run is actually pretty impressive. I like the nice broad powerband from 3500-6000 and it's making some pretty sweet toque too. What engine?

quote Originally posted by MotorTV: Thats it? Just "yes"? No coments about this run? how disapointing,,,,, Chuck

I can neither confirm, nor deny if I want to see your dyno charts.

quote Originally posted by Zac88GT: Allright the run is actually pretty impressive. I like the nice broad powerband from 3500-6000 and it's making some pretty sweet toque too. What engine?

The engine is a 383 Lt1 stroker... Turbo with intercooler...



Chuck

quote Originally posted by MotorTV: Anyone want to see one of the higher boost runs?

Reminds me of the old Beach Boys song called Surfin' Sarafi....

Giddy up giddy up giddy up 409
(Giddy up giddy up 409)
Giddy up 409
(Giddy up giddy up 409)
Giddy up 409
(Giddy up giddy up 409)
Giddy up 40...

Oh come on Chuck, show us the chart were you cranked up the boost.

BTW, in my shop we have a rule, no one is allowed to sing along with songs that are older than they are.

Archie

.......409......

Chuck

Where is the chart?

Frank

Post it Chuck!!!!

Lets see it...

quote Originally posted by MotorTV: Because my car did not make it to Daytona this year, I would like to enter my dyno runs by proxy... :-) Here is the lowest boost base run from today... about 5 lb boost... Anyone want to see one of the higher boost runs? Chuck

Pardon me Chuck but you better post the other chart. 295rwhp/422rwtq from a turbo 383 on 5psi?? I wasn't expecting that from a 383 turbo. Maybe a 383 NA.

Just for the record and now that we will include dyno charts outside the D7 session for reference here is mine from 3 weeks ago. 304rwhp/366rwtq. This is a modified TPI "turd" normally aspirated. Latest mods here: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/077431.html

Did Archie re-dynoed his? Results? Would be interesting to clarify if D7 dyno was off.

quote Originally posted by Alex4mula: Pardon me Chuck but you better post the other chart. 295rwhp/422rwtq from a turbo 383 on 5psi?? I wasn't expecting that from a 383 turbo. Maybe a 383 NA.

Actually wasn't the 295/422 the original LT1 with a "hot cam"?
It was the dyno chuck did to show he had more power than crazyD's car.
When the LT1 had problems, Chuck rebuilt it into the 383 turbo he has today.
(I just did an article on Chuck's car for our club newsletter. )


Archie "spilled the beans" in the D7 pic thread:
"It's a good thing he didn't make it to FL though. Someone would have been buying him dinner, he made 410hp with 704 T on the Dyno this morning."

[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 03-31-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Alex4mula: Did Archie re-dynoed his? Results? Would be interesting to clarify if D7 dyno was off.

Yes I did, I picked up about 20 hp & 10 t.

The environment inside the dyno room was a lot better than it was in FL. Also this Dyno had a built in weather station that monitored & adjusted for the conditions inside the building.

I ment to post the chart last night before I left the shop but I forgot to & I didn't bring it home with me.

Maybe Chuck can post it up, otherwise I'll post it up Monday.

Leaving to go visit the grandkids right now, see you all Sunday night.

Archie

[This message has been edited by Archie (edited 03-31-2007).]