I just got my truck dynoed on a Mustang Dyno. HP 220/ Torque 318. Mods are on my Sig. list and the SCT tune was on performance. I was a little disappointed with the #'s at first, since I dynoed my truck last year on a Dyno Jet and the HP #'s were about the same. Mods were the same except I had a Hypertech last year instead of the SCT programmer. I thought the #'s would be a little higher since my truck feels a lot stronger with the SCT tune. I felt a lot better after the tech told me that the Mustang Dyno produces more accurate and realistic behind the wheel HP and Torque #'s, than the Dyno Jet because the Mustang Dyno is a load dyno. Since the Dyno Jet is not a load dyno, it may produce higher HP and Torque #'s which might not give true behind the wheel HP & Torque #'s. On the flipside, I was pleased with the torque #'s. Hopefully, I can scan the dyno sheet and post it soon.

 

nice info. i wish i had access to one.i think alot of people with any type of vehicle would be suprised how low "real" #'s are.

 

not to sound bad or anything but that's it? whats the #'s on a stock truck? I was getting the crazy idea tonight of maybe running the Beast down the strip after I get it back together just for the fun of it. I'd probably get some laughs out of it at least

 

i am not going to swear to it but i think i read a post one time about 185hp. donnt remember the torque.
that 245hp you always see is at the crank.and that # is put out buy dodge. if you get my drift.

 

oh so were most companies low ball the hp dodge high ***** it

 

that 185hp# was at the wheels.which is what he did above.

i think all the big companies play that hp game. they all give you crank #'s and not what actually gets put to the ground.

 

Yeah, the companies all do it, as far as I'm aware. I doubt they really exaggerate the crank HP numbers much if at all, using the crank #s instead of the at the wheels is "exaggeration" enough.

On a side note, the 50mm Fastman might be holding him back slightly, as a 52mm is what is recommended for the 5.9L. But I doubt it would have made a hardly any difference at all in total HP/TQ numbers.

 

the new hemi loses some where close to 100hp from the crank to the wheels.not sure of the exact hp#. maybe hammer will see this.i think he knows the real #'s.

 

bcdalton, How do you like the Hughes FI Airgap intake?

 

That sucks for me...mine must be really low. But you are likely around 300 or more at the crank, so that isn't too bad at all for a 2nd gen. I would be happy with that torque...rather have high torque numbers than HP.