AJ:

I'd like to take a shot at your torque questions:

Q1: "If your PCM is limiting you to XXX ft lbs torque and you build the motor to make 5000 ft lbs how much torque will the PCM allow?" Ans. XXX ft lbs.

Q2:"If you make 100 hp at 2000 rpm and 275hp at 6000 stock Y engine SAE report

If I can make 130 to 150 hp at 2000 and 275 at 6000 does it make more power? Ans. Yes, because, over time (i.e., the rev band or power band) you make more power over stock because Torque = (HPx5252)/RPM. Low down at 2000 RPM you're making from 341 ft-lbs (@130 HP) to 394 ft-lbs (@150HP) compared to stock of 263 ft-lbs. At 6000 RPM both tuned and stock motors share 240.7 ft-lbs. A quick linear graph (attached below as: VIN Y motor (stock vs AJxtcman).gif) shows more torque over RPM (i.e., rev band or power band) for the tuned motor (please note: this graph is way over-simplified with no curves but proves the point nonetheless). For reference, a 1994 VIN Y puts out max 300 ft-lbs at 4400 RPM, which doesn't help the stock motor's situation when comparing it to the tuned motors.

Q3:"If you make 80hp @ 200 and 292 @ 6300 Stock 9 engine SAE report

If I make 130hp to 150 hp @ 2000 and 275hp @ 6300 does mine make less power?" Ans. I'm tired, but it looks like the same situation as Q2, AJ's tune wins the game by using the same old torque math equation above. For the stock "9" engine: 80HP@2000RPM = 210 lb-ft and 292HP@6300RPM = 243 lb-ft. For the AJ-tuned "9" engine: 130-150HP@2000RPM = 341-394 lb-ft, respectively and 275HP@6300 = 229 lb-ft. Who care's if torque is puking out at 229 vs the stock's 243 lb-ft, just grab another gear before 6300RPM and keep on flying using the AJ tune.

Q4:"If a quarter mile calculator says bert's aka Highline cady's DHS is producing 320HP out of a VIN Y 275 hp motor on my tune is it correct?" Ans. Yes, or at least pretty close. The torque math equation above tells us that if torque goes up under constant conditions such as same RPM engine, car tires, etc. than so does HP. Math is math and you can't beat it unless it's done wrong, in which case it's not math

Basically, it's garbage in gets garbage out, but one can put stock in math if one takes the time using decent numbers under similar conditions. You and Bert have shown this by running undeniably faster times than stock using same car, same driver, same tires, same day, and same math/quarter mile calculator - so you must be making more power with your tune.

This is not an advertisement, I'm just an enthusiast -- so here's my questions

1) Why do we all sometimes fruitlessly waste our time asking ourselves: "WTF was GM thinking?" Maybe their just building cars to satisfy the majority of customers who might not all be "hard-core" power-addicted enthusiasts.

2) Do dyno numbers give the real numbers we're interested in? Half the graphs I see don't cross near 5252 RPM. Tires and drivetrain, no air resistance, torque control systems, etc can interfere with comparing one car to another when measuring from the wheel.

3) Can AJ get that torque delivered signal to 99% for our PCMs? This comes from Q1, all the extra mod Qs, etc. The N* may truly be a wicked enthusiast motor. The graph attached below as: AJ max torque signal.jpg

I'm not writing this stuff to be an ass or endorse product. I think enthusiasts should stick together instead of ripping each other apart. We're not really that big of a family and the market is limited. You'd be far richer tuning for a host of other vehicles - most of us need to keep our day jobs and remain enthusiasts doing it for fun and having fun along the way.

## Bookmarks