|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025 |
Originally posted by ov3n:
how did you measure torque?
yeah really?  you must be calculating something wrong.
Torque = HP*5252/Max HP at specific RPM. Assuming your making 187 hp at about 6500 rpms, that gives:
Torque = 187*5252/6500
Torque = 151.1 ft.lbs of tq. Even then, thats closer and sounds accurate.
Jim Hahn
1996 T-Red Contour SE Reborn 4/6/04
3.0L swap and Arizona Dyno Chip Turbo Kit
364 whp, 410 wtq @ 4,700 rpm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 337
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 337 |
Originally posted by ov3n:
Originally posted by IanX12SVT:
well i don't know of a real dyno around here untill then all i have are these numbers to go by i know the tq is wrong like i said before the tq #'s were not off the g-tech
torque is too high. hp is a little high. the 1/4 mile sounds reasonable tho.
how did you measure torque?
it's done in a excel spreed sheet that was made to calculate tq based on time and hp reading from g-tech.
98.5 SVT
RIP
92 240sx SE
[image]http://home.comcast.net/~iansmith321/wsb/media/384458/site1054_t.jpg[/image]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 337
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 337 |
Originally posted by beyondloadedSE:
Originally posted by ov3n:
how did you measure torque?
yeah really? you must be calculating something wrong.
Torque = HP*5252/Max HP at specific RPM. Assuming your making 187 hp at about 6500 rpms, that gives:
Torque = 187*5252/6500
Torque = 151.1 ft.lbs of tq. Even then, thats closer and sounds accurate.
I know it was wrong because our cars put down more ho than tq so I know it was wrong,
one thing I have to say, if adding a y pipe to a stock svt sho shop claims that this y pipe adds 10 hp gave or take, if you minus the y pipe and do true duals correct me if am wrong will you or will you not gain more than what a stock exhaust system with y pipe would.
am not saying this is or should be tru, am just puting it out there.
98.5 SVT
RIP
92 240sx SE
[image]http://home.comcast.net/~iansmith321/wsb/media/384458/site1054_t.jpg[/image]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 337
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 337 |
Originally posted by JonnySVT:
Both should be off, but torque is WAY off. With only exhaust and an intake and 18s there's no way you could put down 187hp either. Just keepin it real....when keeping it real, goes wrong. 
i feel were your comming from but i don't think bigger wheels will affect the reading from a g-tech the only thing that will effect it are wind and drag. byt the way one of my wheels + tire = 29lbs atlest that's what the invoice from fedex sated
98.5 SVT
RIP
92 240sx SE
[image]http://home.comcast.net/~iansmith321/wsb/media/384458/site1054_t.jpg[/image]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,779
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,779 |
Quote:
byt the way one of my wheels + tire = 29lbs atlest that's what the invoice from fedex sated
Yeah...that makes no logical sense, unless your 18s weigh 4 lbs each....weigh them, don't mind the invoice. My 17s weigh 17.5 lbs and the tire/wheel combo = 40 lbs on the nose...3 lbs lighter than E1s with tires.
First off you are starting 5 hp down with 195 @ crank. Then you only have an intake (I assume an adapter w/ K&N, no heatshield) and true duals....If true duals will give me over 10hp at the wheels more than an opt. y, no res, and 2 magnaflows...sign me up. Basically you're saying that it's possible that you gained 20 fwhp from your true duals. 
99 SVTC, T-Red, #652/2760-12.8.1998
Mother#@%@!* did I sound abstract?
I hope it sounded more confusin than that!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 337
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 337 |
not 20 but atlest 8 to 12hp but none the less there was a gain.
98.5 SVT
RIP
92 240sx SE
[image]http://home.comcast.net/~iansmith321/wsb/media/384458/site1054_t.jpg[/image]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,779
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,779 |
true there COULD and most likely is a gain. A stock 98 SHOULD dyno around low 160s. You're posting 187, see where I get 20+ from? Im' just trying to keep you from getting too excited for a big let down on a real dyno.
99 SVTC, T-Red, #652/2760-12.8.1998
Mother#@%@!* did I sound abstract?
I hope it sounded more confusin than that!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 337
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 337 |
Originally posted by JonnySVT:
true there COULD and most likely is a gain. A stock 98 SHOULD dyno around low 160s. You're posting 187, see where I get 20+ from? Im' just trying to keep you from getting too excited for a big let down on a real dyno.
oh i know what you mean am sure am around 170 atlest and am more then happy with that.
98.5 SVT
RIP
92 240sx SE
[image]http://home.comcast.net/~iansmith321/wsb/media/384458/site1054_t.jpg[/image]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
