Power mods for the I-5

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by ChevyHighPerformance

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

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.

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by ChevyHighPerformance

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.

Originally Posted by PARAGON

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

[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...

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.

[ChevyHighPerformance]

Originally Posted by PARAGON

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.

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

[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

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

You just followed it.

[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.

[hummer_metal]

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.

[hummer_metal]

ebay item number 330004099308

[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.

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by hummer_metal

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.

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

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by hummer_metal

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.

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






Do you use one of these for recoveries?



Cool stuff!

[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

[HummBebe]

Silly Queen

[DennisAJC]

Originally Posted by h2co-pilot

dumbass turdfayg.

X2.

What are you guys talking aboot anyways?