Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

HP is not the limiting factor, unless you are talking about heat rejection due to internal friction, or a design limit for maximum internal rotating speed.

Most engines do not produce their peak torque at maximum RPM as you are implying here.

Check the manufacturers specifications for drivetrain components. They do not list horsepower. They do list torque.

Michael

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

Over 20%???!!! Not any SAE certified test, with all emission equipment functioning and within spec. Maybe on some bogus inertial dyno.

Michael

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

Come on...... do you even know what HP is? HP IS a measure of torque. :rolleyes:

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

Mikey, I think you are quickly losing some of the information you learned during the school year in your high school shop class.

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

No, it is not. It is a measure of power.

I bet you are one of these uninformed people who thinks the faster car always has an engine which produces more torque.

Michael

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

brain trust going at it! I like it!

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

Mostly useless info, still no proof of significant power increase to the I5 without s/c or turbos.

S.

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

stupid speaks

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

Where did you hear that? From a horse? :rolleyes:

Ok, sport. Here's a little lesson for ya'

Torque is tangential force TIMES the distance from the fulcrum or a measure of force at a single moment in time. HorsePower can be defined as work (force over distance) per unit time.

Applying 1 lb of force 1 ft from the fulcrum for a complete revolution will lead to;
W = F*2*Pi*r = 1 lb * 2*Pi * 1 ft = 2*Pi lb-ft = 6.283 lb-ft

If it takes one minute to complete this revolution, then the power is;
P = W / time = 6.283 lb-ft/min
1 HP is defined as 550 lb-ft/s or 33,000 lb-ft/min

Therefore, applying 1 lb-ft of torque in one minute (1 rpm) = [6.283 lb-ft/min] / [33,000 lb-ft/min] = 1/5252 of 1 hp.
From this you can then calculate the number of hp from any given torque and rpm:
HP = Torque * RPM/5252 or
HP = Torque measured over time and distance.

Therefore, HP is a measurement of Torque over a given time and given distance.

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

First off, I don't need your lesson.

Second, that's not what you said. You said it was a "measure of torque", not a "measure of torque over time". You've just proven my point that horsepower is a measure of power, not a torque measurement. If horsepower was purely a measure of torque, then how is it that 1 horsepower = 745 watts? Just because torque is one variable in the equation of horsepower, doesn't mean it's a measure of torque. That's like saying wattage is a measure of volts.

Michael

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

Ok,

do you attempt to think with that thing you call a brain or does it just occupy space. Go the fck back up and look at my posts. My first post in this thread where you have spat your ignorance contained this little gem "Since HP is the measure of torque over time, HP is just as limiting a factor as torque. You can't have HP without torque."

To which you disagreed.

Care to try some more?

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

Hope that is not from the southwest and some "GM engineer." Just a note, I can take any dyno graph and change it the way I like it. Not saying this is what happened, but, if GM could raise the HP (safely) with a tune, and a new cat back system and airbox, they would have already done it. I say safely, but I also mean legally.

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

I see about 3.5 block increase for which each block is 5 hp about a 17 - 18 HP gain at the wheels. This is the power measured at the wheels. The drivetrain has an efficiency. The power loss is mostly converted to heat and absorbed in inertial loads. The drivetrain loss is dependent on the drivetrain loading. On a dynojet, the stock peak power might be 165 hp at the wheels.

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

I don't think it was raised by that much.

There is no 100HP difference between BHP and rear wheel HP, which is what is being shown. Stock listed BHP for the H3 is what? somewhere around 220BHP and the stock rear wheel HP listed on the graph is about 138 HP. The coefficient for friction doesn't increase as the HP increases so one could naturally assume a 80HP difference. 153 + 80 = 233 or a net gain of about 13 BHP or somewhere around a 6% gain.

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

I'll give you a 20 BHP gain and it's still less than 10%. Driveline has nothing to do with this since you are looking at the actual before/after.

Again, whatever driveline loss occurs at the stock level will occur at the higher level, you don't arbitrarily just throw in some additional ponies.:rolleyes:

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

dummy, the new SAE tests have shown to INCREASE stated BHP on many domestic engines.

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

This is not my dyno graph. This is from another post from another H3 forum. I was just providing it as an example. You can look in Colordao/Canyon forums for other dynos. Here is a dyno on a dynojet by K&N for an H3. In stock form the drivetrain efficiency (on this inertial dyno) was 75% or 25% loss (0.25 * 220 HP = 55 hp loss)

http://www.kandn.com/dynocharts/77-3044.pdf

I'm not surprised by the 65% drivetrain efficiency with dyno that properly loads down a 4WD vehicle like a Mustang dyno. Here is another dyno from K&N for a colorado same 3.5 L engine but 2WD and the stock HP is 180 hp (compare to 165 hp for the H3).

http://www.kandn.com/dynocharts/63-1095.pdf

The difference peak HP is due to the drivetrain efficiency ~82% for the 2WD colorado and 75% for the H3 on an inertial dyno.

GM has to tune for the masses. Because of production tolerances, different environments, different local fuel, etc. GM can't tune to the performance edge. GM uses a consevative ~11.9:1 A/F at WOT when most tuners bump that to 12.8:1 or so for more power.

GM has noise goals to meet. In the past, GM would ship a Z28 to SLP to have and intake, exhaust, etc. put on and SLP would not have to meet the noise requirements that GM had to meet. A new H3 airbox that eliminates the resonator will have more noise as well as a free flowing exhaust. For the new Z06, GM designed a cutout, so when you went to WOT (which does not have noise requirements) the cutouts opened for more power and substanially more noise.

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

The drivetrain has an efficiency (percentage loss) not a fixed HP loss.

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

It depends on the manufacturer. Some rating stayed the same, some went up (some GM) , and some went down (some Toyotas). In fact, GM underrates their engines so that their expected worst engine meets the advertised ratings.

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

My reply was toward power mods for the H3 and having the ability to gain over 20% with bolt-ons. Based on personally observed data, I said that you can. I presented someone elses dyno graph that shows a 15% increase with only an airbox, exhaust, and tuning.

Here are bolt-on mods that if all done, that will increase the HP by more than 20%

1) Well designed cold air intake
2) Ported throttle body
3) Under drive pulley
4) Electric fan(s)
5) Header
6) High flow cat and piping that doesn have the two crush locations like the stock piece
7) Cat back exhaust
8) Custom PCM tuning
9) Electric water pump

If properly done, there will be no change in emissions, more HP, and better fuel econony.

If you have a different opinion that's fine.

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

AND????? Do you think you can effectively calculate the loss, given the load, tire, temperature of the fluids. Dyno the BHP and then stick it in the truck and measure the net HP and that's your number. Using a linear curve as you are suggesting will cause you to reach a point of diminishing returns which will flaw your data. That's to say, the driveline would have to be seizing.

Just as it's not a fixed HP loss, it's not a fixed percentage nor does it weigh in on this situation. The effect is negligible considering the fact that you contended that 265BHP was achievable and 253BHP was achieved, when neither has been shown to be true.

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

:confused:

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

Chevyhghperf, you really don't have to tell me what GM does to meet the masses when producing vehicles. In regard to the programming, yesterday, the head of programmer was over and we discussed the H3 program, as well as a few others. GM has done a high performance tune for the engine (police/Border patrol), and not anywhere near what was shown on the dyno. In fact, we discussed this exact dyno chart, since he spotted it on the "other forum."
I guess we can all discuss this until hell freezes over, but I still have a problem with that dyno chart, and so did he.
You guys have fun...

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

If I want the marginal 20hp increase, I'll buy the 2007 with a full warranty. Right now my 2006 H3 is performing exactly as expected.

S.

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

I'm not following your logic. There are fixed, linear, and non-linear losses in the drivetrain. The % efficiency is just a close approximation.

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

F5,

The entire reply wasn't really directed you. So, I appologize. I know who you work for.

Is he more comfortable with the K&N dyno? Is it the amount of loss this dyno showed?

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

You just followed it.:confused: :rolleyes:

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

Damn, you are just getting dumber and dumb.

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

Agriv8r told me I was nuts if I posted what I added to my H3 to give it a little more power and increased gas mileage.

I'm not sure about spamming this site.



He kinda chuckled at me and told me about this forum. Now I have only had it a couple days, and not sure if it works as I have had the same tank of gas in.

However, say I am tricking myself to believe that it is working is fair enough. But I believe that I am getting 3 maybe 4 miles more to a gallon. HP, well I am not so sure about this yet.

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

ebay item number 330004099308

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

"The coefficient for friction doesn't increase as the HP increases so one could naturally assume a 80HP difference. 153 + 80 = 233 or a net gain of about 13 BHP or somewhere around a 6% gain."

Here you used a absolute drivetrain loss - 80 hp.

"Just as it's not a fixed HP loss"

Here you technically contradicted yourself.

The chassis dyno showed a gain of about 17-18 hp. Based on your logic the BHP only increased by 13 hp. What you have effective stated is that the drivetrain loss decreased with increased power throughput. You now you have said all three possibilities regarding drivetrain loss:

1) The loss is fixed
2) The loss increases with hp thoughput
3) The loss decreases with hp throughput

This is the failed logic that I don't understand.

Even though the drivetrain has constant, linear, and non-linear loss parts for these hp changes its fair and reasonable to linearize the loss as an efficiency. If the chassis dyno hp tripled then using a linear % drivetrain loss may not be reasonable.

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

read some things literally and then take your own license on others?

I believe it to be quite clear...... look up the definition of coefficient.

It is quite logical to assume that stated engine dyno'd BHP is X and that someone runs a dyno on a chassis dyno and shows a difference of -80HP, that one would use the number 80. Never did I say absolute, that's where you took your liberty. I'm not the one pitching the BS here.

And finally, you are simply lying. I, in no way, suggested that drivetrain loss decreased with the increase in HP. I said that the chart showed a net gain of 13 HP. You chose 17-18 HP by pulling it out of your ass as there is no way to assume a 5 point difference by that chart.

Now, try and work your way into any fcking credibility on this site now, turd. You want to argue points, fine.

You don't get the chance to take your liberties with what others have stated. Move on, you're done here.

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

Popular Mechanics did some testing and didn't think much of that kind of device. I'm pretty skeptical myself. http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...tml?page=1&c=y

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

you would have better chance if you stuck one of this in your H3






Do you use one of these for recoveries?;)



Cool stuff!

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

"There is no 100HP difference between BHP and rear wheel HP, which is what is being shown. Stock listed BHP for the H3 is what? somewhere around 220BHP and the stock rear wheel HP listed on the graph is about 138 HP. The coefficient for friction doesn't increase as the HP increases so one could naturally assume a 80HP difference. 153 + 80 = 233 or a net gain of about 13 BHP or somewhere around a 6% gain."

If the coefficient of friction doesn't increase as the HP increases (based on your quote) then the HP doesn't decrease as the HP decreases. Here you used a fixed HP loss value of 80 HP.

"Never did I say absolute, that's where you took your liberty. I'm not the one pitching the BS here."

80 is an absolute number.

You also said that the stock rear wheel hp from the graph is 138. First, understand that the H3 is a 4WD vehicle as has to be dynoed on an all-wheel drive dyno. This isn't rear wheel hp it is wheel hp. Then you said the new new HP curve has a peak hp of 153. Isn't 153 - 138 = 15 hp??? These are your numbers. Where's the net 13 BHP coming from that you calculated??? Where's the 13 HP that you keep referring too???

"There is no 100HP difference between BHP and rear wheel HP"

Correct. According to your numbers 220 - 138 = 82 hp. Then you are using 80 as a hp difference.

All I did was take the numbers that you posted and consolidated them. You biased each number in your favor. Now, who is taking the liberties.

Stick to your happy meal word search, and help Ronald find the hamburgerler. We're all counting on you!

When you reply, as you know you will, let's try not using the playground words like: turd, dummy, dumber, dumb, etc. as you seem to refer to everyone as.

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

Ok

Clearly, you spend way too much time in darkened rooms in front of your seven-year-old computer turning a whiter shade of pale. Go outside once in a while and breathe, before your brain starts to rot from all that festering stagnation and cognitive dysfunction. It's obvious now that you make slugs and other invertebrates look like Nobel Prize winners.

Clearly, the full area of your ignorance is not yet mapped and we are presently only exploring the fringes of that vast expanse. If wit was spit, your mouth would be drier than a shallow well in an African heat wave. Maybe you wouldn't be such a Jerk-In-The-Box if you weren't intellectually outclassed by dead sheep. I'd get more pleasure from running my nostrils down a cactus, than reading another contribution from you. However, I'll consider letting you have the last word if you guarantee it will be your very last.

You know, every now and then you meet someone whose ignorance is encyclopedic. You're him..

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

dumbass turdfayg.

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

I added this flux capacitor to mine it is only effective if:

1) it has to be going 88 mph
2) 1.21 gigawatts need to be going through the flux capacitor
3) the time circuits need to be on with a destination date set

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

Silly Queen:D

Re: Power mods for the I-5
 

X2.:mad:

What are you guys talking aboot anyways?:D