Why is my torque so low??
05-01-2004, 11:57 AM
#21
TECH Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Berkley, MI
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dude your getting confused...re-read the thread.
This is my point, my car tossed down 363/361 at 3300. You should be concerned. Yes I agree that if my car was dyno'd with a higher weight (like yours) my numbers would be even higher.
Between your car and mine and their respective set-ups (your monster cam, ls6 and stage 2 heads + a tune !) your HP is LOW (for the set up) and your torque is flat on the floor.
Sorry dude....if you see a Black FRC floating around on W.W. catch me at a light and I'll prove it to you.
This is my point, my car tossed down 363/361 at 3300. You should be concerned. Yes I agree that if my car was dyno'd with a higher weight (like yours) my numbers would be even higher.
Between your car and mine and their respective set-ups (your monster cam, ls6 and stage 2 heads + a tune !) your HP is LOW (for the set up) and your torque is flat on the floor.
Sorry dude....if you see a Black FRC floating around on W.W. catch me at a light and I'll prove it to you.
05-01-2004, 11:30 PM
#22
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Commerce, MI
Posts: 1,563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mirek
Dude your getting confused...re-read the thread.
This is my point, my car tossed down 363/361 at 3300. You should be concerned. Yes I agree that if my car was dyno'd with a higher weight (like yours) my numbers would be even higher.
Between your car and mine and their respective set-ups (your monster cam, ls6 and stage 2 heads + a tune !) your HP is LOW (for the set up) and your torque is flat on the floor.
Sorry dude....if you see a Black FRC floating around on W.W. catch me at a light and I'll prove it to you.
This is my point, my car tossed down 363/361 at 3300. You should be concerned. Yes I agree that if my car was dyno'd with a higher weight (like yours) my numbers would be even higher.
Between your car and mine and their respective set-ups (your monster cam, ls6 and stage 2 heads + a tune !) your HP is LOW (for the set up) and your torque is flat on the floor.
Sorry dude....if you see a Black FRC floating around on W.W. catch me at a light and I'll prove it to you.
Get the facts strait. You also said APE put your weight in @ 3600.
05-02-2004, 12:04 AM
#25
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Commerce, MI
Posts: 1,563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by H82BBad
you guys put way to much stock in dyno numbers.I made 34x hp on a mustang dyno and went 11.30's @ 120. so at 380 you should be good to run in the 10's 
Stock suspension sucks!
05-02-2004, 10:59 AM
#26
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Livonia, Mi
Posts: 1,455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also got really low torque numbers on a Mustang Dyno. With the mods in sig I put down 346 hp and 329.8 tq? Doesnt sound right at all but hey. Runs better, and I'm tired of messing with it for at least another week
05-04-2004, 10:47 AM
#27
PSJ Wannabe & Attention Whore
iTrader: (-10)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys...... i gave a call to the tech people at Mustang dyno and they confirmed that 500 lbs either way might make a couple of hp or lb ft diffrence but that is all. So if we told the dyno it weighed 3000 or 4000 it would be 2-3 hp off.
05-04-2004, 11:08 AM
#29
I think the problem is your cam! Get a single pattern cam and I think you will see your numbers improve! You want torque go to a smaller cam. Check this guy out: https://ls1tech.com/forums/generation-iii-internal-engine/167220-flow-s-local-mildly-ported-heads.html
05-04-2004, 01:56 PM
#30
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Commerce, MI
Posts: 1,563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Deeavi
I think the problem is your cam! Get a single pattern cam and I think you will see your numbers improve! You want torque go to a smaller cam. Check this guy out: https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167220
Well, now that I think about it, the TQ is where it should be with this cam. I want to add nitrous in the future so I think a reverse split would be better for that right?
05-04-2004, 02:02 PM
#31
11 Second Club
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: The Confederacy
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by v8maro
Well, now that I think about it, the TQ is where it should be with this cam. I want to add nitrous in the future so I think a reverse split would be better for that right?
05-04-2004, 06:37 PM
#34
TECH Addict
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: IL
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mirek
Ummm actually according to the dyno results based on weight posted above they would be higher. The FRC is the lightest C5 ever built BTW.
Somebody has to be able to help with why your torque is in the pooper....I was looking at the TEA 5.3 heads and am second guessing myself.
Somebody has to be able to help with why your torque is in the pooper....I was looking at the TEA 5.3 heads and am second guessing myself.
Isn't the Z06 the lightest C5? Thinner glass,Ti exhaust,etc.
Yes ,the Z06 is a notchback design but the Z06 and FRC are different models according to GM.
05-04-2004, 07:46 PM
#35
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Commerce, MI
Posts: 1,563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gomer
The exact opposite is true. A traditional split (larger exhaust duration) is a much better nitrous cam than a reverse split.
Oh well, that sucks, doesn't matter tho, ls6 stage 2's and 231/237 will be in my future
05-04-2004, 09:08 PM
#36
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Palm Coast, FL
Posts: 1,645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by foff667
for a mustang dynon i dont think the tq #'s are that far off hed probably be looking at 360-370 on a dynojet and with the cam & heads provided it sounds right in the ballpark of what everyone else is making and before you go jumping to an even bigger cam on stock cubes look at what mike98ws6 gained by going to the 231/237 cam. Bottom line is they look inline for the mods posted IMHO.
lata
Bill
lata
Bill
05-04-2004, 11:05 PM
#37
Launching!
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: South Bend IN
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Put it on a dynojet to see what your numbers really are. I wouldn't put to much faith in your current numbers. Also don't mention your current numbers and have it retuned and you'll probably be pleasantly suprised.
05-05-2004, 09:32 AM
#38
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Commerce, MI
Posts: 1,563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you saying my tune is bad?? APE has done over like 700 tunes, I think they know what they are doing? PM me if you feel different i guess?
-Steve
-Steve
05-06-2004, 09:54 AM
#40
PSJ Wannabe & Attention Whore
iTrader: (-10)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If its not a good tune steve, ill retune it for free. Let me know what it runs at the track first. 
On my dyno, a 397 rwhp 3600 lb car will run 11.6@119 . A 475 rwhp 3200 lb car went 128 mph. My dyno is pretty stingy but we use the dyno for what its made for: to give the customer more hp, more tourque and better drivability than what he/she came in with. Is that the tune you recieved steve ?
MIRECK- I want to invite you to make a couple of pulls free of charge to show what your car makes on our mustang dyno. Interested ?
On my dyno, a 397 rwhp 3600 lb car will run 11.6@119 . A 475 rwhp 3200 lb car went 128 mph. My dyno is pretty stingy but we use the dyno for what its made for: to give the customer more hp, more tourque and better drivability than what he/she came in with. Is that the tune you recieved steve ?
MIRECK- I want to invite you to make a couple of pulls free of charge to show what your car makes on our mustang dyno. Interested ?