Power mods for the I-5

[ChevyHighPerformance]

Originally Posted by f5fstop

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...

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?

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by ChevyHighPerformance

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?

Damn, you are just getting dumber and dumb.

[ChevyHighPerformance]

Originally Posted by PARAGON

Damn, you are just getting dumber and dumb.

"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.

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by ChevyHighPerformance

"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.

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.

[ChevyHighPerformance]

Originally Posted by PARAGON

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.

"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.

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by ChevyHighPerformance

"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 if GM says 220 then 233-220=13 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. Did you look up what a coefficient is..... it has nothing to do with this. I threw it in because I knew you were full of sh!t. The coefficient OF friction also does not increase as it is a fixed amount of drag between to parts. FRICTION increases in a manner to which it cannot be accurately calculated.

"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. Assume is not absolute

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. No it doesn't. Do you think 4WD dynos magically appeared when the H3 did? People drop the front shaft and put it in 4HI loc to obtain RWHP readings all over the country. There is no way to assume that it is a 4 wheel 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??? I keep referring too?????? It comes from your dumb ass. You said 253 was the number, I simply used a guess of 220 and 80 (as round fcking numbers). Dumb ass I this is all gotten from YOUR fcked information, now you want to back-track out of it.

"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. What's the matter? You were called on your BS and now can't back it and are now relegated to arguing assumptions? How did you conveniently skip over the word assume in front of the number 80 in my post.

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.
I biased the numbers? sheezus..... there is no end to your flaming load of crock. I ended up rounding the fcking numbers up OVER your stated BS and they still didn't wash with what your originally stated. Yeah, you consolidated my numbers, and ended up with a steaming pile of sh!t after you did. You didn't comprehend anything nor did you do much else than show your complete lack of credibility. Don't worry, I'm sure many want to "talk" tuning with you now.

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.

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..

[h2co-pilot]

Originally Posted by ChevyHighPerformance

I eat my own poop.......that is all.

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.

dumbass turdfayg.

[h2co-pilot]

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

[DennisAJC]

Originally Posted by h2co-pilot

dumbass turdfayg.

X2.

What are you guys talking aboot anyways?

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by ChevyHighPerformance

"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.

did you go downstairs and try to drum up some rebuttal material from dear ole dad yet?

Would you rather talk lasers now?