Torquer v.2 Dyno low #'s?
04-26-2009, 09:32 PM
#21
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Macungie, PA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the magic question -- what did it dyno before the Cam?I've seen a ton of low powered cars,so when you do the bolt-ons they are still low.
Take my car -260rwhp stock (99TA) With pretty much the same setup as yours -370rwhp.Some cars just dyno low.Now if you dyno'd before and said you only gained 20hp then we could say something is wrong.
Take my car -260rwhp stock (99TA) With pretty much the same setup as yours -370rwhp.Some cars just dyno low.Now if you dyno'd before and said you only gained 20hp then we could say something is wrong.
so i don't know the numbers... 
08-30-2009, 08:58 PM
#24
is that an M6 or auto?
you did not specifi your exhaust. "LT's and catback" there is a big difference between a headman & flowmaster combo and a Kooks&Borla combo.
Do you also have an underdrive pulley? Did you do all the free mods including putting spacers under the lid and cutting away the plastic underneath?
you did not specifi your exhaust. "LT's and catback" there is a big difference between a headman & flowmaster combo and a Kooks&Borla combo.
Do you also have an underdrive pulley? Did you do all the free mods including putting spacers under the lid and cutting away the plastic underneath?
Last edited by HTX; 08-30-2009 at 09:06 PM.
08-31-2009, 03:36 AM
#26
08-31-2009, 09:52 AM
#28
This is a good example of why baseline pulls are so important. The lobes used in that camshaft are extremely proven & should make a big power gain. Checkout the install first to confirm it has the correct advance.
__________________
Jason
Co-Owner, Texas Speed & Performance, Ltd.
2005 Twin Turbo C6
404cid Stroker, 67mm Twins
994rwhp/902lb ft @ 22 psi (mustang dyno) www.Texas-Speed.com
Jason
Co-Owner, Texas Speed & Performance, Ltd.
2005 Twin Turbo C6
404cid Stroker, 67mm Twins
994rwhp/902lb ft @ 22 psi (mustang dyno) www.Texas-Speed.com
08-31-2009, 12:39 PM
#29
Banned
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know the thread is old, but Im wondering if the OP installed the cam way advanced by accident. Stock injectors being maxed out shouldnt be the issue of the low numbers. The AFR afterall is right on the money. Even if the injectors are getting taxed, they are still not starving the motor for fuel.
Im also wondering if it is just simply the calibration of the dyno. My dyno shop just recently updated their calibration to a much more conservative table. So now all my old dynos are about 20rwhp less than before. Kinda ***** with your head when you see LOWER numbers than before after a mod and a new tune.
A dyno isnt about peak power and all that other crap. Its a tuning tool. The numbers that it spits out is just a way for you to see what changes are going on with the car when you are tuning it.
Im also wondering if it is just simply the calibration of the dyno. My dyno shop just recently updated their calibration to a much more conservative table. So now all my old dynos are about 20rwhp less than before. Kinda ***** with your head when you see LOWER numbers than before after a mod and a new tune.
A dyno isnt about peak power and all that other crap. Its a tuning tool. The numbers that it spits out is just a way for you to see what changes are going on with the car when you are tuning it.
09-30-2009, 11:25 PM
#32
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Round Rock, Texas
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bringing this back again, kind of curious if it was solved. I used an LQ9/LQ4 combo, I was told it was an LQ9, but expecting otherwise now. It only put down 289rwhp, and 360rwtq. Pretty anemic for a car with a Torquer v2 lol
