Cadillac Owners Forum banner
  • Hey everyone! Enter your ride HERE to be a part of JUNE's Ride of the Month Challenge!

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
2006 STS-V, 2004 Pontiac GTO, 2008 Pontiac G8 GT, 1999 Chevrolet Suburban LT 4x4
Joined
·
1,434 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Finally got my turn on Speed Inc's dyno to be tuned.

Mods are;
- Magnaflow resonator/mufflers like Jaime
- Spectre CAI
- Speed Inc tune

Stock, if you'll remember when I posted that, I was running pig fat rich at WOT, was 360rwhp.

I am completely sleeveless BTW. Unfortunately due to work, I was unable to be there and swap out the sleeve/sleeveless to see which gained more power. I just made the call to go sleeveless. Jim was able to tune the MAF accordingly.


 

·
Registered
2013 OBM CTS-V Coupe
Joined
·
2,664 Posts
That's a lot of Torque!! The lower HP is due to the resonator. With the X-Pipe you will get more HP (and interior noise) but less Torque.

WOW that's a BUNCH of Torque....

How does she feel?
 

·
Registered
2013 OBM CTS-V Coupe
Joined
·
2,664 Posts
Yep that's the same one I have. I lost HP but gained a sh*t load of Torque. And yes I know the Torque is because of added back pressure...... Those numbers just back up my Butt Dyno that said I got a whole bunch of torque. I explained that back when I did the change from the X-Pipe to the Resonated X-Pipe (Muffler).
 

·
Registered
2013 OBM CTS-V Coupe
Joined
·
2,664 Posts
Looks to be at 12?
 

·
Registered
2006 STS-V, 2004 Pontiac GTO, 2008 Pontiac G8 GT, 1999 Chevrolet Suburban LT 4x4
Joined
·
1,434 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Thanks,

I'm thinking about removing the resonator anyway. I don't care for the drone I get in some low throttle, under load driving conditions.

As to the A/F, it, as well as my LTFT's are spot on.

Power pulls would've been done in whatever gear is 1:1 (4th?) On this trans.

These pulls were done in nearly 74¤ temps. Later, on the street when it was only 50¤ out, the thing was an utter monster.
 

·
Registered
2013 OBM CTS-V Coupe
Joined
·
2,664 Posts
With that much Torque I can understand!!

Word of caution: If you remove the resonator and just put an X-Pipe in or worse, straight pipes it will get louder.....

That is why I went the resonator route. I had the X-Pipe and it drove me nuts.

Enjoy the tune!!
 

·
Registered
2013 OBM CTS-V Coupe
Joined
·
2,664 Posts
Are you going to get her to a track? I'd love to see 1/4 mile times.

We may have to petition a Sticky for a 1/4 mile time thread:devil:.......
 

·
Registered
'12 Regal GS, '01 Trans Am
Joined
·
248 Posts
And yes I know the Torque is because of added back pressure......
Hopefully you're joking with that one.

I also wouldn't use the spike at the end of 470 as the torque value, most likely it was due to either upsetting the dyno when it hit the limiter or a lean spike due to the fuel cutoff. Realistically the car is in the 420-430 ft*lb range.
 

·
Registered
2013 OBM CTS-V Coupe
Joined
·
2,664 Posts
Hopefully you're joking with that one.
Not even going to justify that one with a response...... Anyone who knows, should know. Common myth. Google it.

Tried to avoid a worthless discussion and still got one...... Swing and a miss!!

P.S. 420-440 is a good amount of Torque.
 

·
Registered
08 STS-V,10 escalade,80 sedan deville diesel 13 cts vagon
Joined
·
1,611 Posts
Don't any one take this the wrong way but that is the worst dyno run I have ever seen. That tq is all over the place like the tq converter was going crazy. Even when my v was pulling timing it did not look that bad. And I would say 400-410 for tq the spikes don't count. I would like to know what caused it to look like that. I hope they undid the abs. But 411/let's say 415 is still good. Ryan
 

·
Registered
'12 Regal GS, '01 Trans Am
Joined
·
248 Posts
Not even going to justify that one with a response...... Anyone who knows, should know. Common myth. Google it.

Tried to avoid a worthless discussion and still got one...... Swing and a miss!!
Uh, maybe I'm misreading but I sure hope you're not trying to tell me the old ricer myth about more backpressure resulting in more torque is true. Because yes, that is a common myth from those who don't understand what port velocity is, but I see it raised enough on car forums to know many fall for it.
 

·
Registered
2006 STS-V
Joined
·
209 Posts
first put a sleeve on it, the 83 would be my suggestion, that uneven line bothers me, 2nd i dont see the A/F on there, well i see the graph but there is no noticable line so once again, something wrong, and instead of a mph based graph, get a RPM. im sure an easy math calculation can drag it out but still something wrong here.
 

·
Registered
2013 OBM CTS-V Coupe
Joined
·
2,664 Posts
Uh, maybe I'm misreading but I sure hope you're not trying to tell me the old ricer myth about more backpressure resulting in more torque is true. Because yes, that is a common myth from those who don't understand what port velocity is, but I see it raised enough on car forums to know many fall for it.
no, No, NO- I was saying that the backpressure=torque theory is FALSE!!!! I just didn't want that to enter this thread and you have brought it up. THANKS!

NOW MEANWHILE BACK AT THE RANCH...............
 

·
Registered
2006 STS-V and 2007 STS-V The Murdalac
Joined
·
1,907 Posts
1st, Thanks for posting. More data is awesome.

2nd, The torque curve is erroneous. TQ and HP curves have to intersect at 5252rpm. These clearly do not. No big deal, just pointing that out to further debate. Mine made 385ft/lbs at 409rwhp. I'd estimate yours to be in that range as well, 385-400.

3rd, That result looks exactly like mine after my intake and tune. Similar numbers too except I have stock exhaust and was on a Mustang dyno.

4th. Enjoy the car!
 

·
Registered
'12 Regal GS, '01 Trans Am
Joined
·
248 Posts
no, No, NO- I was saying that the backpressure=torque theory is FALSE!!!! I just didn't want that to enter this thread and you have brought it up. THANKS!

NOW MEANWHILE BACK AT THE RANCH...............
Ok we're on the same page then. The sarcasm in your initial post didn't translate well, my bad. :cheers:
 

·
Registered
'12 Regal GS, '01 Trans Am
Joined
·
248 Posts
1st, Thanks for posting. More data is awesome.

2nd, The torque curve is erroneous. TQ and HP curves have to intersect at 5252rpm. These clearly do not. No big deal, just pointing that out to further debate. Mine made 385ft/lbs at 409rwhp. I'd estimate yours to be in that range as well, 385-400.
It's hard to read as the x-axis is posted as vehicle speed, not engine speed, so you'd have to calculate out the drive ratio to approximate rpms.

It does look like the chassis got upset on the dyno or something, which resulted in the oscillation of the torque readings - I had that happen when I dyno'd my T/A on spray, as it spun the tires on the dyno when the nitrous hit and caused the chassis to keep unloading through the pull resulting in a graph similar to that. Without smoothing the HP spike was at 570, which did not add up for a 100 shot on a 430 rwhp car.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top