G8 GT vs. LT1, LS1, STI, BMW X5 M, Turbo Civic (No Videos, Sorry)
06-23-2011, 05:51 PM
#41
10 Second Club
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: STL
Posts: 3,494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But also to add something EVERY dyno is different and thats a fact.
I always love people getting all worked up over numbers.
I remember when my Tune 2004 M6 Gto made 352/366 with a JHP intake tube no cats and tune on a dynojet and everyone over on LS1gto.com freaked out saying i was lying about mods and so on.
I always love people getting all worked up over numbers.
I remember when my Tune 2004 M6 Gto made 352/366 with a JHP intake tube no cats and tune on a dynojet and everyone over on LS1gto.com freaked out saying i was lying about mods and so on.
06-23-2011, 05:56 PM
#42
Slowhawk has admitted that his MD was recalibrated to read a bunch higher than it did with the MD calibration, and it still reads 12-15 rwhp lower than a local Dynojet (verified by him and a few others). I've seen a stock G8 making in the 260's on an untouched Mustang Dyno.
As far as "people getting all worked up over numbers", if the numbers don't matter then why are you defending them?
As far as "people getting all worked up over numbers", if the numbers don't matter then why are you defending them?
Last edited by ScreaminRedZ; 06-23-2011 at 06:09 PM.
06-23-2011, 06:09 PM
#43
10 Second Club
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: STL
Posts: 3,494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the Gto made 352 SAE..
Trap was 108 something with some decent driving done by myself.
http://www.ls1gto.com/forums/showthr...204&highlight=
Trap was 108 something with some decent driving done by myself.
http://www.ls1gto.com/forums/showthr...204&highlight=
06-23-2011, 06:53 PM
#44
Your mph (107.8 unless I'm wrong) doesn't seem that good for the horsepower (bad air that day?) and then you made a bunch less (337 rwhp) after headers on a different dyno.
You would probably get along well with that guy in the dyno section who is claiming he made 378 rwhp and 393 rwtq with a bolt-on 2000 Camaro SS
You would probably get along well with that guy in the dyno section who is claiming he made 378 rwhp and 393 rwtq with a bolt-on 2000 Camaro SS
Last edited by ScreaminRedZ; 06-23-2011 at 08:05 PM.
06-23-2011, 08:21 PM
#46
10 Second Club
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: STL
Posts: 3,494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your mph (107.8 unless I'm wrong) doesn't seem that good for the horsepower (bad air that day?) and then you made a bunch less (337 rwhp) after headers on a different dyno.
You would probably get along well with that guy in the dyno section who is claiming he made 378 rwhp and 393 rwtq with a bolt-on 2000 Camaro SS
You would probably get along well with that guy in the dyno section who is claiming he made 378 rwhp and 393 rwtq with a bolt-on 2000 Camaro SS
107.8 yea weather wasn't the best and also being a 6speed sometimes not the Quickest shifting and never did Powershift the car.
12.9@107.8 with hardly any mods and full weight at the time was damn impressive for a 04.
Yep along with a LONG list of other cars. What cars have you tuned?
The one excuse i have for the jumpy graphing is the owner decided to fill up on QT 87(**** gas) i tuned the car about 2 weeks earlier no knock no issues.
On the dyno it started spark knocking and STILL made that power. Can't help shitty gas.
That was also on only 19* of timing.
06-23-2011, 08:48 PM
#47
As for the G8 in question, if the Mustang Dyno was not messed with, then the car should have no trouble trapping 110+ mph.
Last edited by ScreaminRedZ; 06-23-2011 at 08:53 PM.
06-24-2011, 11:01 PM
#49
10 Second Club
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: STL
Posts: 3,494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After you fixed the little issue with the car, what did it make on the dyno where you made 337? Or was going back to the dyno that alot people people said reads high the way you fixed the issue?
Good numbers for the mods, not so much for the power.
As for the G8 in question, if the Mustang Dyno was not messed with, then the car should have no trouble trapping 110+ mph.
Good numbers for the mods, not so much for the power.
As for the G8 in question, if the Mustang Dyno was not messed with, then the car should have no trouble trapping 110+ mph.
Hit up the 1st dyno just because i was out in the area.. but there was a issues with the car at the time of the other visit.
110+ with making 337 on a mustang dyno LOL prob not. Every dyno is different for sure, i actually just retuned the car on 87 octane and sold him my CAI, it runs even better now!
I made 362 on dynojet with my g8 did do 110.15 ONCE but AVG'ed 107.5-109.5
06-25-2011, 04:12 AM
#51
Teching In
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets look at a car that weighs 3800 lbs or so making 352HP... trapping HIGH 107 is about right with some slow shifting
Hit up the 1st dyno just because i was out in the area.. but there was a issues with the car at the time of the other visit.
110+ with making 337 on a mustang dyno LOL prob not. Every dyno is different for sure, i actually just retuned the car on 87 octane and sold him my CAI, it runs even better now!
I made 362 on dynojet with my g8 did do 110.15 ONCE but AVG'ed 107.5-109.5
Hit up the 1st dyno just because i was out in the area.. but there was a issues with the car at the time of the other visit.
110+ with making 337 on a mustang dyno LOL prob not. Every dyno is different for sure, i actually just retuned the car on 87 octane and sold him my CAI, it runs even better now!
I made 362 on dynojet with my g8 did do 110.15 ONCE but AVG'ed 107.5-109.5
I know mine weighs a bit less (3450 with me in it), but I wouldn't think 300-400lbs extra would make you lose 8mph. I would expect 350whp to be at least 110mph traps with a 3800lb car.
