Dynoed my 2005 QC!

[Chingon]

Bone stock '05 QC dynoed in Albuquerque, NM (~5300ft elevation). Man, you sea-level guys have it so good...

Uncorrected: 349.69 hp and 387.43 ft-lbs

Corrected: 418.63 hp and 463.81 ft-lbs

Interestingly, the dyno guy showed me that I made a few more ponies than a RC SRT-10 that he dynoed...:dontknow:

 

[AWDisuzu]

that's why you need a turbo kit!

 

[Chingon]

Nah, I got the 7/70 warranty that I want to avoid losing. I'm thinking CAI, full exhaust (no cats) and PCM flash... Just have to $ave up!

 

[lbstone]

Bone stock '05 QC dynoed in Albuquerque, NM (~5300ft elevation). Man, you sea-level guys have it so good...

Uncorrected: 349.69 hp and 387.43 ft-lbs

Interestingly, the dyno guy showed me that I made a few more ponies than a RC SRT-10 that he dynoed...:dontknow:

Thats so odd, I was under the impression that standard vehicles had less parasitic losses in the trasmissions. Yes, its true that stock QC's are as fast if not faster in the 8th and 1/4 and have a higher top speed but as far as power to the wheels, it was my understanding that RC's had a bit more. :dontknow:

 

[AWDisuzu]

parasitic losses are somewhat eliminated entirely on the dyno because it measures torque, and in a high gear the ramp up speed is slow enough that even the heavy torque converter isn't going to make much of a difference.

however, the RC has more timing and leaner fuel curve from the factory, so this must be a really good QC or the RC that was dyno'd before was running weak for some reason.

 

[JTS VENOM PERFORMANCE]

Thats so odd, I was under the impression that standard vehicles had less parasitic losses in the trasmissions. Yes, its true that stock QC's are as fast if not faster in the 8th and 1/4 and have a higher top speed but as far as power to the wheels, it was my understanding that RC's had a bit more. :dontknow:

QC's normally have around 418rwhp stock or so

Rc's normally have 430 rwhp or so.

but the RC's are faster on top end because of the overdrive unit inthe QC's jsut want let them get there

 

[AWDisuzu]

since when are RC's faster in the top end? My QC has hit 155 a time or 2 (before any mods)

QC's normally have around 418rwhp stock or so

Rc's normally have 430 rwhp or so.

but the RC's are faster on top end because of the overdrive unit inthe QC's jsut want let them get there

 

[davo19]

way to go mike, nice #'s.

 

[lbstone]

Its been my understanding that in 04 the RC (no QC) was the title holder of the fastest production truck until 05 and the QC dethroned it (unofficially, this was Dodge's stand) by only a mph or two. Now its a Australian HMV Maloo R8 (GMC's Holden) that owns the title of fastest production truck (LS2 powered and 168.7 mph!!!)!!

 

[GILMO'S10]

EXPLAIN CORRECTED AND NON CORRECTED
FOR US BONE HEADS.

 

[BigRed460]

...a stock 2005 qc is NOT as fast as me 1/4 or 1/8 mile. Top speed wise they might be close, but the RC gets there WAY faster. The 06 RC has the fastest top speed, the new front end has a lower drag co-efficent.

 

[rottenronnie]

EXPLAIN CORRECTED AND NON CORRECTED
FOR US BONE HEADS.

http://wahiduddin.net/calc/cf.htm

Ron

 

[SWIFT]

Different dyno's, different days, weather, lots of factors.
Mine dynoed 431rwhp a RC dynoed 426rwhp same dyno.

 

[6pakattack]

Interesting comments,my YF only had 407hp and 416tq !!!And there's more loss through an automatic than there is through a stick !!!:dontknow:

 

[GILMO'S10]

http://wahiduddin.net/calc/cf.htm

Ron

DUDE THAT IS AWESOME.EXPLAINS IT VERY WELL,THANKS:rock:

 

[dragon]

Uncorrected: 349.69 hp and 387.43 ft-lbs

Corrected: 418.63 hp and 463.81 ft-lbs

so what is the uncorrected and corrected thing mean??? :dontknow: :dontknow: :dontknow:

o ya good run though

 

[Get Bit]

Uncorrected: 349.69 hp and 387.43 ft-lbs

Corrected: 418.63 hp and 463.81 ft-lbs

so what is the uncorrected and corrected thing mean??? :dontknow: :dontknow: :dontknow:

o ya good run though

Uncorrected is what HP and TQ he is actually making at his elevation, SAE corrected is perfect conditions at sea-level, etc..

Up here in the clouds we loose about 20-25% power just from the elevation. Turbos will eat up alot of that, however it does affect S/C vehicles the same.

 

[AWDisuzu]

that's because turbos are metered by boost pressure, and superchargers are run off the belt. So, at high altitude, the SC will have less air to work with and no way to increase boost since it's directly tied to the RPMs. The turbos will also have less air, except that they will spin harder since the wategate won't open until they turbos reach the preset boost level.

If your turbo is maxxed out at sea level, it could easilly overspool at high altitude and you'll have a big mess to clean up!

 

[Silverback]

that's because turbos are metered by boost pressure, and superchargers are run off the belt. So, at high altitude, the SC will have less air to work with and no way to increase boost since it's directly tied to the RPMs. The turbos will also have less air, except that they will spin harder since the wategate won't open until they turbos reach the preset boost level.

If your turbo is maxxed out at sea level, it could easilly overspool at high altitude and you'll have a big mess to clean up!

10 PSI will still be 10 PSI.

The difference is that there will still be less oxygen to burn, hence the loss of HP.

 

[Chingon]

I think what he was saying was that, given a supercharger setup rigged to make 10psi of boost at sealevel, you won't be making 10psi of boost at 5,000ft altitude. You'd have to go with a smaller pulley to make that supercharger spin faster and "collect" more of the less dense air...

Air at 10psi will have the same oxygen level whether it was compressed from sea level or higher altitudes...