AM I MISSING SOMETHING?

Joseph Garcia said:

I will leave it more knowledgeable folks to discuss the technical aspects of your question. @swathdiver @iamdub @Doubeleive

Regarding the FB comments made to you, IMO, those types of groups get more thrills out of sniping and insulting each other, than they do on having intelligent discussions.

Click to expand...

m1949 said:

Today I joined a FB group of Escalade Enthusiastes. For a first post I described what we are doing to my 06 Escalade and included a vidoe of a dyno run for the LS364/450 we installed. I purposely didn't post hp and torque numbers. Almost immediately someone asked for them. I stated the numbers the tuner calculated from the rearwheel dyno are 452hp and 447ft-lb torque at the flywheel. I was then criticized for posting "calculated flywheel numbers" since "they are irrelevant."

Am I missing something here? I know the rear wheel numbers are lower than flywheel numbers. However, I also am aware using properly qualified correction factors and accurately (within reason) calculated flywheel numbers for this engine lets me it is performing in the range of the manufactures published flywheel specs. I'm at a loss as to why some folks don't get this, since manufacturers use flywheel specs to quote hp and torque.

Click to expand...

gooffeyguy said:

Probably just better to have posted the rear wheel hp numbers from the dyno. Some people take the word "calculated" as just a fudged guess leaning towards the higher side just so it sounds good.

Click to expand...

m1949 said:

Today I joined a FB group of Escalade Enthusiastes. For a first post I described what we are doing to my 06 Escalade and included a vidoe of a dyno run for the LS364/450 we installed. I purposely didn't post hp and torque numbers. Almost immediately someone asked for them. I stated the numbers the tuner calculated from the rearwheel dyno are 452hp and 447ft-lb torque at the flywheel. I was then criticized for posting "calculated flywheel numbers" since "they are irrelevant."

Am I missing something here? I know the rear wheel numbers are lower than flywheel numbers. However, I also am aware using properly qualified correction factors and accurately (within reason) calculated flywheel numbers for this engine lets me it is performing in the range of the manufactures published flywheel specs. I'm at a loss as to why some folks don't get this, since manufacturers use flywheel specs to quote hp and torque.

Click to expand...

m1949 said:

You're probably correct. I guess my building excitement as delivery approaches is effecting my judgment. Just a couple more weeks.

Click to expand...

swathdiver said:

There are many ways of displaying the numbers, not all of them are right for each situation. Corrected numbers allows a fellow in Denver to compare his build to a guy's in Los Angeles.

I never learned that stuff, I did learn a math formula for RWHP through the traps in the quarter mile so that's what I use.

I also recognize that different dynos, different brands of dynos, calculate and deliver the numbers differently, some more accurate than others.

Anyhow, this project sounds exciting, sorry I've missed it!

Click to expand...

m1949 said:

Yes. I had that discussion with the tuner/programmer. What I was after was a way to know the engine we installed was within GMs published spec.

Click to expand...