| From | Message |
kota on 20s
GenIII
 
12/26/2001
01:01:20
|
 Subject: dyno #'s from a 5.3 chubby hahaha
IP: Logged
Message:
188.4 rwhp from a 5.3. its sopose to have like 280hp at the flywheel! almost 100hp lost through the driveline (or chubby's lying)! WHAT A PIECE OF SH1T!
check it out
http://forums.chevytalk.com/forums/Forum11/HTML/000268.html
Eric
|
Clevite 77
Dodge Dakota
12/26/2001
08:43:42
| RE: dyno #'s from a 5.3 chubby hahaha
IP: Logged
Message:
Awww toooo bad sux to be them haha
|
Josh A. Smith
Dodge Dakota
12/26/2001
10:02:13
| RE: dyno #'s from a 5.3 chubby hahaha
IP: Logged
Message:
do you think the fact that it was a Yukon decreased the performance since they are so heavy?
|
CW
GenIII
12/26/2001
10:32:53
|  RE: dyno #'s from a 5.3 chubby hahaha
IP: Logged
Message:
Weight means nothing in dyno numbers, only acceleration tests.
2001 4.7 5sp 3.92 LSD sport plus
Ported throttle body, IAT adjuster, flowmaster cat back, adjusted TPS from .51v to .76v, 4" cold air intake
|
toast
Dodge Dakota
12/26/2001
15:24:34
| RE: dyno #'s from a 5.3 chubby hahaha
IP: Logged
Message:
What was the touqe at and at what rpm?
|
kota on 20s
GenIII
12/26/2001
19:02:53
| RE: dyno #'s from a 5.3 chubby hahaha
IP: Logged
Message:
i cant really see the numbers on the graph because its too blury. the guy only posted the hp numbers and no rpm's
if you want to see the graph type (or cut and past) in the link. and have a good laugh.
also on "chevy talk" about everyother thread is about something breaking on their new silvarado's burbons and taho's hehehe
Eric
|
Wayne
Dodge Dakota
12/26/2001
19:51:28
| RE: dyno #'s from a 5.3 chubby hahaha
IP: Logged
Message:
A fellow that works for me has a Chubby W/5.3 - auto - 3.73 and Borla catback. He got over 230 h.p. on the same dyno that I got 196 with my 5.2 (not stock 5.2). He, also, out runs the crap out of me.
|
JP
Dodge Dakota
12/26/2001
20:08:27
| RE: dyno #'s from a 5.3 chubby hahaha
IP: Logged
Message:
Wow, who cares what the HP numbers are. After reading their forum it sounds as though the whole family of new GM engines may have some basic flaws. Very entertaining since I seriously considered purchasing one of these back in May instead of my Dakota.
JP '01, CC, SLT+, 4.7, AWD, LSD
|
Wayne
Dodge Dakota
12/26/2001
20:14:56
| RE: dyno #'s from a 5.3 chubby hahaha
IP: Logged
Message:
They aren't flawed. They are a take off of the LS1 (I have a '02 Trans Am) and are very potent. I have watched them at the drag strip and they are impressive. I am not trying to sell Chubbys on a Dakota site - just setting the record straight. I love my Dakota but I know how good the Chubbys are and don't care much for false b.s. on any vehicle.
|
Wayne
Dodge Dakota
12/26/2001
20:21:17
| RE: dyno #'s from a 5.3 chubby hahaha
IP: Logged
Message:
Go down about 10 posts from this one titled "5.3 beat my 4.7". I only read the first 5 or 6 but that is another Dak beat by a 5.3. I saw a Silverado just like the one described in the post at the strip and he ran 15.2 with no limited slip.
|
kota on 20s
GenIII
12/27/2001
00:15:40
| RE: dyno #'s from a 5.3 chubby hahaha
IP: Logged
Message:
wayne, i think JP is saying the engines are "flawed" because almost everyother post has something wrong with the truck. lifter problem ect...
if the numbers fluxuate (sp?) that much on the dyno 188-230, i guess that says something about the quality of the ROCKS that GM produces.
i know some dakota R/T's are faster than others, but a 42 HP differance?
maby your friends chubby is a freak (if you consider 230 hp at the wheels from 280-285 from the crank a freak), because i have ridden in quiet a few and they all seem just as slow as the others
Eric
|
Wayne
Dodge Dakota
12/27/2001
03:58:21
| RE: dyno #'s from a 5.3 chubby hahaha
IP: Logged
Message:
Maybe they are flawed. You couldn't prove it by me. I'm judging by 1 regular cab and 2 extended cabs that I know as well as a few others that I see at the strip. They all run about the same and that is better than I expected Low 15s to high 14s). If I were forced to buy a full sized truck tomorrow, it would have to be the chubby. I'm glad I don't have to do that because my Dakota is my favorite truck so far and at 52 yrs. old, I have had a few to compare to.:-)
|
kota on 20s
GenIII
12/27/2001
12:08:13
| RE: dyno #'s from a 5.3 chubby hahaha
IP: Logged
Message:
why wouldnt you buy another dakota?
Eric
|
Anthony G
Dodge Dakota
12/27/2001
12:17:40
| RE: dyno #'s from a 5.3 chubby hahaha
IP: Logged
Message:
Dakota's are not fully size. Wayne said, Full size.
|
kota on 20s
GenIII
12/27/2001
12:19:51
| RE: dyno #'s from a 5.3 chubby hahaha
IP: Logged
Message:
gotcha ;-)
Eric
|
JP
Dodge Dakota
12/27/2001
12:54:29
| RE: dyno #'s from a 5.3 chubby hahaha
IP: Logged
Message:
Wayne,
I have owned Chev's for 30 years and still have a '77 K10 so I don't knock them in general. Kota is right, what I ment was there seems to be a knock that is developing in a significant % of the new generation GM V8 engines. The knock is low in the engine and that is usually not good news. Anyway it is not my style to just be negative, just reflecting on a potential technical issue.
JP
|
Wayne
Dodge Dakota
12/27/2001
19:54:34
| RE: dyno #'s from a 5.3 chubby hahaha
IP: Logged
Message:
Thanks JP. I'll be watching for that problem. Then I can harass my chubby loving friends. I hope this isn't happening on LS1s. I had a '98 and now have a '02. There is nothing on LS1.com about this problem.
Kota - My choice of replacement would be a Dakota, but I was referring to being forced into buying a full sized truck. I would not buy the RAM because the new models are uuuuugly.Due to JP's info, I may have to go to a full sized furd (heaven forbid).
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
