"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
12/08/2016 at 16:48 • Filed to: cruisin
1
24|
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
12/08/2016 at 16:48 • Filed to: cruisin | 1
| 24 |
Found a Dyno run for my truck and its both inspiring in pathetic
I mean, check out that torque curve! I realize turbo engines can do this all day long but for a naturally aspirated gas engine designed in the 90's Im pretty impressed.
Then you read the figures that are getting to the ground. 121.5 peak hp, 158 peak lbs-ft.
Its a good thing its not a 6200 lbs vehicle and...oh...
LongbowMkII
> HammerheadFistpunch
12/08/2016 at 16:55 |
|
Too bad dynos don’t measure low rpm power well
If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent
> HammerheadFistpunch
12/08/2016 at 16:57 |
|
Look how fuckingly linear my fucking power curve is.
Swayze Train GTi
> HammerheadFistpunch
12/08/2016 at 16:59 |
|
Psh, numbers. They just get in the way of everything
|
HammerheadFistpunch
> If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent
12/08/2016 at 17:01 |
|
Thats pretty linear.
bhtooefr
> HammerheadFistpunch
12/08/2016 at 17:03 |
|
Hot take: modern turbocharged engines’ flat power curves are because of optimization for the low end, and therefore they struggle to breathe at the high end, meaning increasing RPM doesn’t really increase power.
Basically, a turbocharged engine simulator would be a low-lift cam with restrictive intake and exhaust.
|
HammerheadFistpunch
> LongbowMkII
12/08/2016 at 17:06 |
|
so true. According to Toyota, 220 of the 275 crank ft-lbs are supposedly available at 1000 rpm...and It kinda feels like it.
Dusty Ventures
> HammerheadFistpunch
12/08/2016 at 17:07 |
|
You want numbers?
YOU WANT NUMBERS??
BOOM!
(*results inflated by Accessport simulated dyno. But who really cares about factual accuracy these days?)
|
HammerheadFistpunch
> bhtooefr
12/08/2016 at 17:08 |
|
This is true. My engine is pretty much this exact thing...it hates to rev and it doesn’t seem to do much good, thus the 212 crank hp peak
|
HammerheadFistpunch
> Dusty Ventures
12/08/2016 at 17:09 |
|
I don’t know whats going on here. did you run my numbers though a thing?
Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap
> HammerheadFistpunch
12/08/2016 at 17:25 |
|
I don’t know what a dyno chart for mine looks like and I’m kinda glad.
|
LongbowMkII
> HammerheadFistpunch
12/08/2016 at 17:39 |
|
All about that grunt
Pickup_man
> HammerheadFistpunch
12/08/2016 at 17:40 |
|
Here’s one for the F-150 and it’s various engines. I’ve got a ‘99 with the 2v 5.4 and this shows why I still think it’s one of Ford’s best truck motors. For an NA gas motor it really heaps on the torque down low, then it stays really flat for most of the usable RPM range. I mean, look at it compared to the 5.0 (5.4 red line, 5.0 yellow line), it out torques the 5.0 everywhere except a small, high RPM range (4300-5000), which you’re hardly ever in, and it kicks its ass everywhere below 4000. So yeah, the 5.4 might be a “slow” engine, but it tows like a freakin champ.
This also confirms why the 4.6 was utter garbage.
JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t
> HammerheadFistpunch
12/08/2016 at 18:05 |
|
I searched, I really tried hard... but I can’t find a dyno chart for my tractor, only peak HP results... 27.9 PTO HP @ 3450 RPM.... it’s a 1.6l 3cycl OHV NA IDI diesel.
I bet you it’s torque curve is flat as a board from 900-3450 RPM... but the peak is about 41 lb/ft. How’s that for depressing numbers ruining shit?
That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms
> HammerheadFistpunch
12/08/2016 at 18:12 |
|
Those number seem accurate to my butt dyno. The Cruiser and I have an agreement, I don’t ask it to move quickly and it doesn’t ask me to check it’s fuel economy figures.
That said, what it lacks in acceleration it makes up in smoothness. Inline sixes are the best.
|
Dusty Ventures
> HammerheadFistpunch
12/08/2016 at 18:14 |
|
No, the Accessport has a “simulated dyno feature.” You input weight, starting rpm, finishing rpm, and the gear you want to be in, then accelerate full throttle through the rev range and it calculates your horsepower and torque. I did it the other day in the Outback and this is what it thinks I make at the wheels. If only.
|
HammerheadFistpunch
> That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms
12/08/2016 at 18:22 |
|
its such an effortless cruise to an eventual speed.
V8Demon - Prefers Autos for drag racing. Fite me!
> HammerheadFistpunch
12/08/2016 at 18:27 |
|
I saw the chart and thought “this looks like it’s for a relatively small diesel engine.” What engine is it????
|
That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms
> HammerheadFistpunch
12/08/2016 at 18:27 |
|
It turns fuel into reaching your destination at a leisurely pace.
Funktheduck
> HammerheadFistpunch
12/08/2016 at 18:54 |
|
According to K&N this is what my dyno chart would look like
http://www.knfilters.com/dynocharts/69-6033_dyno.pdf
|
HammerheadFistpunch
> V8Demon - Prefers Autos for drag racing. Fite me!
12/08/2016 at 18:59 |
|
A relatively large gas engine. Toyota 1FZ-FE
Manwich - now Keto-Friendly
> HammerheadFistpunch
12/08/2016 at 19:22 |
|
With that power and torque curve and those numbers, I was guessing you had an old Ford pickup truck with the 300 CID inline 6.... though the torque number looked low for a Ford 300.
|
HammerheadFistpunch
> Manwich - now Keto-Friendly
12/08/2016 at 19:55 |
|
its a more powerful engine than the Ford’s, but its running full time 4wd through some one ton axles, so there is a lot of drivetrain loss.
jdrgoat - Ponticrack?
> HammerheadFistpunch
12/09/2016 at 01:07 |
|
Well, this makes me feel better about the V6 in my Fiero. A typical, in tune, 2.8L (140bhp) seems to put down 115rwhp. But the curve is darn near the same with a peak at 4500. At least I’m under 2800lb...
bob and john
> HammerheadFistpunch
12/09/2016 at 16:31 |
|
.... christ.