They are scamming people those numbers are false.

To many people with Dyno's know that people want to see big numbers and it is to easy to fudge the dyno to make those big numbers happen.

Not only is your HP a dead give away but the torque number is not possible with your truck.

I hope you did not have to pay more than 15 or 20 dollars for that.

Stop and think for a moment your engine is only rated for 410 foot pounds of torque and that is at the fly wheel there is no way you made even 410 foot pounds let alone 690 foot pounds of torque.

 

Looking at your post again I am going to assume you made a typo and intended to type 390 foot pounds of torque, but the same answer still applies, they are scamming people.

Your truck is going to have more loss than is showing on that paper. The best thing you can do is blow your nose with that dyno sheet and toss it in the trash.

 

I can believe the h.p. number as long as it's RWHP, but the torque number Ha, ha, ha. Money back please.

 

No dyno run for me, but I'm interested to see if the 8 speed is better or worse for power loss than the 6 speed.
After seeing the tq number, I certainly would have asked for another run because that's obviously a typo or dyno error.

 

6 spd. vs. 8 is a very good question. Would like to see that also. I had a 2013 RAM C.C. 5.7 with 6 spd. and now have a 2015 same with 8 spd. and to be honest, liked the 6 spd. more. Reason I traded vehicles was the 13 was pretty basic as far as creature comforts and the 15 is a Big Horn loaded with all the stuff except a sun roof. Highway mileage between the two has been very much the same for me. 21 the best.

 

I did 3 pulls on the Dyno and all 3 were consistant, I believe the HP is right but the torque to me is off.

 

You can fudge any dyno, yes even the vaulted DynoJet brand of dyno.

If someone knows what to look for they can tell you how they fudged the dyno results as well.

Sorry but who ever it was doing the dyno runs was fudging the numbers.

If you have a best case of only losing 15% from drive line loss your torque would only be 348.5 foot pounds of torque.

For the horse power you be at 335. These trucks lose more than 15% drive line loss as much as 30%.

I saw a dyno sheet on a Ram 6.4 Hemi and it was down under 300 HP and only 293 for torque. There is a lot of loss through the drive line of these trucks.

 

Post a pic of the dyno chart. What was the brand of the dyno and did you mean 390 tq? Should be SAE adjusted.

 

Maybe torque was in Newton-Meters? Does your dyno sheet have HP and TQ intersecting at all? If not that's impossible

 

690n-m is 509 lb-ft

 

For example, on a Mustang Dyno, my 05 hemi Ram stock couldn't break 255 rwhp. Best that I've seen a 2016 5.7 Ram put down, just under 300 rwhp. A Cummins Ram with a 100 hp tune put down 380 rwhp and 287 rwhp stock. Most vehicles on a Mustang Dyno, will leave the owner hanging his head, except......... Dodge Hellcats. Best HC # stock was 648 rwhp, blew the dyno operator away!

 

Here is a photo of the Dyno Sheet
it does say HP and TQ

 

I really am not trying to rain on your parade but who ever that dyno operator was is taking anyone who pays him for a ride.

Like I said these guys know that when people put their vehicles on a dyno they want to see big numbers and if they get a reputation of letting people down then people won't pay them to dyno their vehicles at these car shows/events.

So what they do is tweak the dyno's settings a little and bingo they can show big numbers for any car they put on the dyno.

Much has been written about this and you can find articles on the internet, but now that you have posted the sheet and you did not make a typo on the torque your dyno run was completely phony.

No way you are making 690 foot pounds of torque and very doubtful that you are making 333 horse power as well at the rear wheels.

 

As mentioned, with no intersecting HP and TQ at 5252 rpm, it's a sure sign of shenanigans. Hp = Trq * 5252 / RPM.
Is that dyno only showing 2100-2900 rpms with 520tq at 2100rpm?

 

I hope he didn't pay for that POS dyno run.

 

LOL, just thinking when the guy who ran that dyno saw your numbers he knew they were not right and if he was a legitimate operator he would have refunded your money and shut down his dyno right then and there.

I wonder how many people left that car show/event with this bogus dyno sheets convinced their vehicles are really making over 300 HP and pushing 700 FT LBS of torque at the rear wheels.

Hell maybe I should see him, I bet my wife's 2016 Honda Civic 1.5 turbo must be making at least 165 HP and pushing a good 500 FT LBS of torque on that dyno.

By the way that dyno run showing the 690 FT LBS of torque is 68.3% above the factory fly wheel torque rating of 410 FT LBS.

 

By the way that dyno run showing the 690 FT LBS of torque is 68.3% above the factory fly wheel torque rating of 410 FT LBS.

It must be the jet chip..

 

30% does sound high, I thought 15 or 20 was more standard

 

For most vehicles it is but we are adding in transfer cases on 4x4 trucks as well.

I saw a dyno sheet on a 2500 6.4 where both the horse power and the torque were under 300, that is a just over 30% drive line loss.

Don't forget that there can also be programs built into the ECM software that limit torque in certain gears or under certain conditions, does a chassis dyno set off that condition in certain gears? Who knows unless you could get your hands on the code in the ECM which is unlikely.

 

There's a dyno run of a 2014 2500 6.7 Cummins on Youtube where it dyno 346 HP and 64X torque. I thought that was pretty impressive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8nCnolDyNc

 

There's a dyno run of a 2014 2500 6.7 Cummins on Youtube where it dyno 346 HP and 64X torque. I thought that was pretty impressive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8nCnolDyNc

If he had the Aisin transmission that would come to about 25% drive line loss for that run.

But the 2014 2500 did not come with an Aisin transmission it came with the 68RFE transmission.

Rated out put was 370 HP and 800 FT LBS.

That dyno run would indicate a drive line loss of only 6.5% for HP, highly unlikely.

To rate 640 FT LBS the drive line would be giving up a 20% loss.

I have a problem with those numbers.

I would never trust these guys with the traveling dynos as they tend to fudge the numbers. If you really want a dyno run find a reputable shop who has a documented history.

Funny how all these traveling dyno guys produce huge numbers on their dynos even with stock vehicles.

Chrysler seems to have had a larger percentage of drive line loss than Ford or General Motors over the years. They just have not been as efficient.

 

I frequently go to Hypertech's website to look at stock/modified dyno runs. I am always a little disappointed at how low most numbers are( except for the turbo diesels on race tunes).
The op's chart is a joke.

 

If I ever cite Wikipedia as a source in a battle of wits, I have, in mind, fired a squib. No disrespect meant to spamPALA, just my sentiments for anyone citing Wikipedia, which is a user based encyclopedia, often without verification.


I claim no form of expertise in physics, thermodynamics, or anything for that matter, but, it's important to remember the following:


"In this context, the second law of thermodynamics delivers another dose of bad news: though it is true that energy is never lost, the energy available for work output will never be as great as the energy put into a system. A car engine, for instance, cannot transform all of its energy input into usable horsepower; some of the energy will be used up in the form of heat and sound. Though energy is conserved, usable energy is not."

Read more: http://www.scienceclarified.com/eve...eal-Life-Physics-Vol-2/Thermodynamics-Real-life-applications.html#ixzz4JQV8saI6


That's my $.02- I don't need my change back

 

This isn't a "battle of wits", I didn't come in here to battle anybody and if you did, perhaps you've misunderstood what forums are for.

It does appear I'm in the minority as somebody who understands quite well how both wikipedia and conservation of energy work. If you don't know how both of those topics function and can only cast smug, disrespectful comments then we have no cause to keep up the.... conversation if it can be called that.

 

My apologies to spamPALA and the members of the forum for my apparent disrespect.


I can be schooled on conservation of energy, and I'm guessing others can as well.


I would like to use the forum as it is intended- to share and learn. If you can put my previous remarks aside, and for the benefit of the forum, engage in a conversation, really, more of a solicitation of knowledge.


If you wouldn't mind, please help me understand how the numbers that the chassis dynos show and engine dynos always vary. I'm not talking about Ram's specifically, I'm asking about the general loss in power from the engine crank to the rear wheels. Is the implication that this is all lost to heat?


I'm truly not being smug or sarcastic here; I find it interesting, as did you in your first comment, and I would like to understand the process from a scientific perspective. If you choose to simply move on from the conversation, I understand.

 

I think you ALL have your panties in a twist.

Now, play nice or like a monkey at the zoo, I'm going to start flinging poop at of you.

 

Some more links on Chassis dynos:

http://www.onallcylinders.com/2012/05/11/dyno-duel-engine-vs-chassis-dynos-what-you-should-know/

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/is-your-dyno-lying-feature

 

Here is one of the best links I have found yet to explain drive line loss on a chassis dyno:

http://www.superstreetonline.com/how-to/engine/modp-1005-drivetrain-power-loss/

Drivetrain loss is a common topic of conversation in the tuner world because any time you strap your car to a chassis dyno, the output being measured is at the wheel, not at the crank like the published SAE net horsepower figures used by the auto industry. Strap your 298-bhp RevUp G35 Coupe to the dyno and you may be disappointed to see little more than 220-230 horses measured at the rear wheels. Where did that 60-plus horsepower go missing? It was used up in a variety of ways before it could reach the drive wheels, the primary source being what's broadly described as drivetrain loss.

What's interesting about this example is that when you do the math you'll see that the percent loss is much higher than the 15 percent "rule" you'll find in any number of online threads on the subject. For whatever reason, drivetrain loss seems to be one of the most poorly understood subjects discussed on online car forums, so despite my love of the Internet and the limitless pornography it makes available to me, when it comes to a fairly technical subject like this it's hard to find good information.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So as you can see from the links I have proved spamPALA trying to push his theory of Heat only is a failed theory, while heat contributes to drivetrain loss on a chassis dyno it is hardly the sole cause of drivetrain loss and yes you can lose as much as 50% through the drivetrain. I have posted links that apply to the subject if spamPALA does not want to educate himself on drivetrain loss then he will never understand how chassis dyno's work when it comes to drivetrain loss.

 

I had been under the impression that Duane Gish passed away some years ago.

Anyway I'll be happy to continue this conversation with literate persons but don't have the energy to bring anyone else up to speed on the differences among laws, theories and hypotheses, nor do I have the energy to respond to willful misinterpretations.

If you want to have an argument with a position you invented in your head, there are other platforms for that.

 

Sorry spamPALA but I have posted links to back up what I said, you have posted nothing to support your argument. You clearly have no clue how chassis dynos work in relation to drivetrain loss and you are not willing to obtain that information, instead you want to parrot an argument about thermo dynamics to try and discredit drivetrain loss.

 

Ah, Jeesh, I was learning so much too.

 

Most community colleges offer adult literacy classes.

Duane Gish over here keeps on having arguments with things I did not say, which can only be either trolling or a failure to experience reading comprehension on any level.

It is not productive to respond to a person who is engaged in a fictional argument with themselves.

 

When all else fails resort to insulting others when your argument fails.

Since you proclaim to be such a genius on this issue please to do explain how vehicles can experience up to 50% drivetrain loss on a chassis dyno.

All you have done so far is try to convince people that it is not possible when the facts clearly prove you wrong.

Now there is a concept facts to back up what you claim. I have posted multiple links and anyone can do an internet search and find plenty of information on drivetrain loss on a chassis dyno.

 

While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts. Our decision is final in these matters.


Keep it on track please

 

purposeless inflammatory posts.

By definition this means strawmen. :4-dontknow:

 

I've taken the time to read through this as it was FLAGGED :doh:

I however did learn something , SO with that being said all I ask
is before you post just keep in mind the younger members who
are like me trying to learn the latest and the school yard BS
is just not called for...It's A Internet Site !

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

 

Probably Older, and Grumpier, than most in this thread, til now and I was enjoying all the learning I was a getting.

 

333 sounds correct or close but Torque was way off.
I dynoed mine at 367 at my sons tech school on a dyno that hasn't been calibrated and topped at 612 on the torque with 15,023 miles and no mods