Dyno Run! HELP PLEASE!

Mike Brunton

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 3, 2000
Posts
3,047
Reaction score
0
Location
N. Andover, MA
Those numbers are REALLY screwed up. I thought your torque was a typo, but then I looked and it was correct....

There is something wrong. Maybe the dyno was way off, or something, but those numbers just don't jive. Horsepower is calculated from torque readings, so you can't make >650 rear wheel torque, but only 350 or so horsepower, unless you have some really strange gearing (which no car would have).

I'd go back to the shop and see what they have to say about it. If these guys are in any way experienced, there is no way these #'s could be right. You SURE those torque numbers aren't in N-M instead of lb-ft???

The horsepower ain't all that bad for a GenI RT/10, but probably should be maybe 20 higher or so.
 
OP
OP
M

Mike Brunton

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 3, 2000
Posts
3,047
Reaction score
0
Location
N. Andover, MA
Cooray,

Wow, good catch by me huh?
You must be registered for see images
457lb-ft is a LOT more reasonable - and actually is VERY VERY healthy for a Gen 1 car. That is more torque than many Gen II Vipers make - my Gen II car w/20k miles, smooth tubes and K&N's made 465lb-ft, so you are doing REALLY well there.

To be honest, I was under the impression that most Gen I cars made around 370-380hp to the rear wheels, but I might be a little off there. Considering your torque is so high, maybe you have something on the car that helps torque but hurts HP? A restrictive exhaust (that might be installed on an exported car) could be such a thing - or a restrictive intake, etc.

I'd say your numbers are really good - if you free up the exhaust and/or intake, you will probably gain some HP but may lose some torque. (for those who are questioning this - remember that HP is just a function of torque and gearing, so what I am saying is that he would be moving the torque higher up in the RPM range).

Anyway, I don't think 357 is abnormally low - and that torque is huge! I'd be happy if I were you....maybe shoot to modify some things that will give you some more HP, even if it sacrifices some low end torque (you got plenty).

My 0.02...

And congrats on the car - must be a cool ride down under
 

Venom Lover

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Posts
627
Reaction score
0
Location
Santa Barbara, CA USA
Hmmmm, something still seems odd. First, the conversion factor from N-m to ft-lbs is .738, so 659.6 N-m is 487 ft-lbs. If you click over to the VCA FAQ, you'll see a table with a dyno result for a '95 RT/10 with exactly your mods (K&N and smooth tubes), and that one came in at 378 rwhp and 441 ft-lbs.

www.viperclub.org/faq/powerfaq.html

So, you are 25 hp low and 46 ft-lbs high relative to that car. That just doesn't seem right.

I could not see the dyno sheet when I clicked on your link, though I did see the cool pix of your ride -- very nice!
You must be registered for see images
. However, peak power should not occur at a "spike". The power curve should ramp up and then reach a max, and then go down. For example, here was my base run when my GTS was still bone stock:

You must be registered for see images
 

C O D Y

Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 21, 2000
Posts
2,443
Reaction score
3
Location
Vancouver, WA
After driveline consideration, a stock Gen 1 engine with 400hp at the flywheel will produce 358.8 hp at the rear wheels.

457 lb-ft of torque would be 509.5 at the flywheel. Very high for a gen 1, and most gen 2's.


check spelling, then post... duh.
 

Jack B

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 5, 2000
Posts
3,485
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Ohio
This post is very timely. I have just completed two separate sessions (7 pulls) on a dyno with a Gen I. The following info should interest all Viper owners, especially Gen 1's.

What made my experience valuable was the quality of the dyno sessions. Dynotech, who evaluated my car is also the manufacturer of Dynojet dynamometers. He also was involved in dynamometer testing for the GTS factory racing program. He has data for over 100 vipers in his data base. He manufactured the unit doing the testing at Mid-Ohio this weekend.

He walked up and actually knew how to open the hood and than asked at the end if I wanted to close the hood. They were a wealth of knowledge, here are a few items:

1. As you shift thru the gears to get into fourth, do so very cautiously (short shift), the dyno is tough on the half-shafts.

2. The vipers heat soak very quickly, therefore, no more than two pulls prior to a 20-30 minute cool down, then additional pulls.

3. Use a high flow external fan during pulls and during cool down. Keep hood down during the pulls.

4. The airflow sensor heats up and the computer adjusts to an environmentally favorable map and reduces horsepower. I haven't tried it yet, but, he suggests putting the airflow sensor in front of the radiator to always get that cold morning power.

5. When working with the factory racing program they told him that the losses across the drive train were 14% new and as the car approached life end, the losses would increase to 17% and yes I heard him correctly.

To back that up, he said that in every case the club racers that he dynos have about 12% losses and that is with a very efficient drive train and no half shafts.

6. If the dyno operator is skilled enough at the end of the pull he can reset the dyno, push in the clutch and get a reading of the horsepower that that the drivetrain is exerting on the dyno drum, in other words, obtain the losses across the drivetrain.

Now for the power data, my gen I has the following:
1994 w/10,000 miles
Balanger Headers thru BTR
Roe's oval cats
Dynomax mufflers - all exhaust components @3"
BTR Cones & Smooth Tubes (I dyno'ed both)
Roe VEC1 controller.

The best run was 404 rwhp and 471 ft lbs torque. The curve is very smooth and flat throughout the power curve. If I use the 14% number for losses the car is 469 hp and 548 ft-lb of torque.

If you have noticed there has been a recent discussion of smooth tubes/KN's versus the cones. The cones pulled 7 hp more than the smooth tubes and KN's. It should improve in a moving vehicle, since the cones are at a disadvantage when not moving.

It was interesting that with stock air box and filters removed the engine pulled less hp, however, the air fuel ratio turned very lean and I didn't have time to adjust the VEC1 to offset the lean condition. He also indicated that some of the new KN's were so heavily oiled that they actually restrict airflow. He suggested cleaning the filters (degreasing), then applying a more sensible amount of oil.

If you are a viper owner and have not dealt with Sean Roe and Tom Welch - you are missing out.
 

RoyV101621

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 12, 2001
Posts
465
Reaction score
0
Location
Indiana Suburbs of Chicago
What is the effect of the Government Mandated Reformulated Summer Time $2.00 a gallon of Premium Fuel? I understand this new fuel is lower octane and has a lower volatility. It sounds to me that the Mid-Central states will be getting substantially less power for more dollars.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
153,645
Posts
1,685,213
Members
18,221
Latest member
tractor1996
Top