-Joseph-

iTrader: (12)

[quote]Originally posted by 99RedHawk:
<strong>..Still don`t know why Gm made the 4.8...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Only thing I can think of would be to help offset emissions from bigger engines. Kinda like "if we make this 4.8L engine meet these requirements...then we can build more 8.1L Avalanche's!" lol, j/k though its probably more true than we think.

Round Rock TA

Are the trucks exactly the same except for the motor? Does one have a longer driveshaft or different gear? <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0"> And what about leather seats? <img src="gr_grin.gif" border="0">

99RedHawk

Sure Greg, be glad to look at your spreadsheet..

Joseph, LOL! Thanks for the answer..I bet you hit that one on the nose. <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">

I make 291 corrected rwhp and 323 torque..Thats was through the stock exhaust.. I guess I will be a little over 300 with the cut-outs open..Thats also with 4.10 gears and 32.9" tall tires..

TX_Silverado

sorry been kinda busy...

we have the posi rear end w/3.73s

is that compared to our first or second pull?
cause our second pull said max power was 235

Nine Ball

iTrader: (38)

I'm pretty sure this was the second pull from your truck, the first one was lower when we looked at it. Your 3.73s probably cost you about 4 "dyno hp" over my 3.42s also.

Anyone here have some full-range rpm 2nd gear vs 3rd gear dynos overlayed on top of eachother?

Tony

badbowties77

Dyno conditions couldnt be any better huh. Looks like you were at sea level,42deg. and with a 30+ barometer.

At least it didnt have it set up for 5000 feet above sea level like Hot Rod magazine would..lol.

really slow truck

here is mine, first 2 runs are 2nd gear, 3rd run is in 3rd gear...

hmm.... i guess my truck is lazy, first 2 runs are like his were, but that was with headers intake and exhaust, with him having 3.73s and me with 3.42s as well.. <img src="gr_sad.gif" border="0"> ( 4.8L )

not the best picture/printout in the world though lol



[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: really slow truck ]</p>

Neil 6.0

I think Joseph is right about the 4.8L. Remember that you can get a 5-speed manual only with the 4.8, so maybe GM is using it to offset the fuel mileage numbers too. <img src="images/icons/confused.gif" border="0">

TX_Silverado

i am no profesional with dyno graphs...so exactly what HP are we pullin

BTW man we are gettin the 2002 HPP3 real soon...and will later spit the money out for custom tuning from Superchips <img src="gr_grin.gif" border="0"> <img src="gr_grin.gif" border="0">

germanengineering

Hi guys, am I reading your graph right? Is the LS1Tech print out wheel HP or crank? I was just comparing V8 US engines regarding torque, HP and fuel consumption to my new Corrado VW 2.0 TSI engine and it seems to me that the main purpose of these V8 is fuel to noise conversion rather than creating torque or HP.
This graph is a 2010 4 cylinder VW 2.0L TSI engine and has the GM5.3L max torque of 264 ft/lbs (360Nm) already at 2600rpm instead having it at 3800rpm.
The 2.0L VW has also a max torque of 287 ft/lbs and has the max HP of the V8 at 4000rpm instead of 5000rpm.
But maybe I am just reading it wrong, converted it wrong or am I just comparing wheel HP to crank HP? But torque should be still the same then because you always put the gear ratio into the dyno no matter what you meassure, right?



Radleistung = WHP
Motorleistunng = HP at the crank
Schleppleistung = difference between WHP and crank HP due to drive train loss
Drehmoment = trorque

A conversion for lbs/ft to Nm can be found here:
http://www.numberfactory.com/nf%20torque.htm