Scanguage HP & TQ - Post your results!
#26
Originally Posted by Austin1
wait a minute, so the horsepower #'s aren't going to be accurate?
man that's what I just ordered it for...
man that's what I just ordered it for...
its gonna be different on every truck, there are a bunch of variables for this
but for normal driving around, aka not flooring it, the hp reading is pretty accurate crank horsepower
#27
Originally Posted by Werty
he means its not very accurate REAR WHEEL horsepower
its gonna be different on every truck, there are a bunch of variables for this
but for normal driving around, aka not flooring it, the hp reading is pretty accurate crank horsepower
its gonna be different on every truck, there are a bunch of variables for this
but for normal driving around, aka not flooring it, the hp reading is pretty accurate crank horsepower
#28
Originally Posted by Austin1
^^ ditto, not too shabby at all....
What performance/engine mods do you have Zach?
I'm assuming on a 4.0 sohc. On another note I was just wondering what are sohc's rated stock from the factory? 170-180ish flywheel?
What performance/engine mods do you have Zach?
I'm assuming on a 4.0 sohc. On another note I was just wondering what are sohc's rated stock from the factory? 170-180ish flywheel?
207 i think
i have headers, intake, exhaust, tuner, and efan.. basic stuff.
#29
I can't speak for the company. However I know there is a parameter called "torque into Convertor".
I can only assume they take this input and then do the math and display it live?
The next time I data log with my sct I'll compair the two TQ numbers and HP numbers and see how they compair.
Rich
I can only assume they take this input and then do the math and display it live?
The next time I data log with my sct I'll compair the two TQ numbers and HP numbers and see how they compair.
Rich
#32
#33
#34
#35
Your right nothing is going to be more precise than a dynotune, I'm just telling what mine said.
If the 4.0's are rated at 207 hp (I would guess crank) then an intake and cat-back would add to that, so it would probably be close atleast correct?
I'd take a picture but i really don't want to take a picture at WOT......might wreck lol
Last edited by Austin1; 01-28-2008 at 08:01 PM.
#36
#37
Wayne is correct. It's reading may or may not be "true". But it really does'nt matter for this thread. What matters is that we are all using the same tool on the same engine/pcm. Yeah it's not scientific.. but it's not a bad or inconsistant way to compare one ranger against another out on a public forum.
btw, so far I've been playing with fuel mixes and timing. So far I've been able to get 258HP and 262TQ. Most base fuels (93 oct) will limit my timing and power readings. 22-24deg & 240hp at 5000+ rpms seems to be the norm. On 94sunoco I can get to 27deg and 256HP nearly everytime.
It's been interesting to see what brands of fuel allow for increased timing.
94 sunoco has been the best and shell 93 seems to be 2nd. Worst has been 92 speedway.
Also, I've been playing with acetone. (have for years on different cars) It does make a difference with the proper base fuel and balance of timing and a/f settings.
Rich
btw, so far I've been playing with fuel mixes and timing. So far I've been able to get 258HP and 262TQ. Most base fuels (93 oct) will limit my timing and power readings. 22-24deg & 240hp at 5000+ rpms seems to be the norm. On 94sunoco I can get to 27deg and 256HP nearly everytime.
It's been interesting to see what brands of fuel allow for increased timing.
94 sunoco has been the best and shell 93 seems to be 2nd. Worst has been 92 speedway.
Also, I've been playing with acetone. (have for years on different cars) It does make a difference with the proper base fuel and balance of timing and a/f settings.
Rich
Last edited by wydopnthrtl; 01-29-2008 at 10:54 AM.
#41
#42
It's a calculation based off of "TQ into convertor" Power measured in this way depends on many variables. IMO the most reasonable way is to make a 3rd gear pull from off idle up to 5600 rpms. These are the numbers I post..
I had not read this parameter in quite a while. Just by chance I happened to this morning on the way in! I hit 243hp at 5400-5500 rpms. (DA was 1145ft Here is a link for DA )
Even though it may not be the same number as a engine dyno. It is a way that we can compare one truck to another in a reasonably consistant manner.
Rich
I had not read this parameter in quite a while. Just by chance I happened to this morning on the way in! I hit 243hp at 5400-5500 rpms. (DA was 1145ft Here is a link for DA )
Even though it may not be the same number as a engine dyno. It is a way that we can compare one truck to another in a reasonably consistant manner.
Rich
Last edited by wydopnthrtl; 06-04-2008 at 09:19 AM.
#44
they are still 149 free shipping on http://www.stuffforyourranger.com/
if im gonna spend that kind of money on an electronic accessory for my truck, its gonna be a gps.
if im gonna spend that kind of money on an electronic accessory for my truck, its gonna be a gps.
#47
Cool!!
For some strange reason mine seems to remain at the 240-250 area even when spraying? The TQ will climb a little.. but the HP won't? Oh well.. I have timeslips that prove I'm puttin down a few extra ponies.
EDIT: Just went out. On my 87 octane tune pushing 16degrees of timing I got 240hp at 5100 to 5500
Rich
For some strange reason mine seems to remain at the 240-250 area even when spraying? The TQ will climb a little.. but the HP won't? Oh well.. I have timeslips that prove I'm puttin down a few extra ponies.
EDIT: Just went out. On my 87 octane tune pushing 16degrees of timing I got 240hp at 5100 to 5500
Rich
Last edited by wydopnthrtl; 10-25-2008 at 01:34 PM.
#50