Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Horsepower math acts weird

  1. #21
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    249
    Thanks! That "math inside math" was the problem!

    This works: (([50108.120] / 1.1194029851) * [50070.56]) / 5373

    I tested with almost stock LS1 Camaro and got somewhat reasonable results (326 hp). I will test this with a '97 Vette too which was recently in trusted dyno.

  2. #22
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    PAC NWest
    Posts
    395
    I used this math to create a graph by plotting it against Delivered Torque.

    I don't know how accurate it is, but its kinda fun.

    HP.jpg

  3. #23
    Potential Tuner
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by SVT_Z06 View Post
    I'm using ([50108.127]*[50070.56]/5373. Seems to work fine for me.
    Sorry to resurrect an old thread but something is wonky on my end, I added this formula and I'm getting way high, like 654peak hp high on a genv 5.3 silverado with a tvs1900 and pulley'd down a bit. I tried running kw and converting and get the exact same number. Is the torque sensor not a reliable reading?

    Screenshot 2020-03-06 22.52.02.png

  4. #24
    It is not "dyno exact", however not all dynos are the same either. It is fairly close. With that calculation, you are getting BHP(HP at the crankshaft. ([50108.127]*[50070.56]/5373 *.8 This would be a formula for a 20% drivetrain loss. *.95 would be a 5% drivetrain loss. There are alot of variables that go into calculating that, 4wd is more of a loss, even in 2wd. Basic average is 15-25% loss through the drivetrain. Manual transmission usually has less drivetrain loss. There may be a batter way to explain it, hope someone can chime in if so.
    03 Z06 stock.......for now
    05 Siearra 5.3 daily
    I have realized that tuning is a rabbit hole. No problem diving down this hole, in fact I jumped willingly. Just want to avoid hitting every ugly rock or root on the way down it.

  5. #25
    Potential Tuner
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    5
    Well good gravy then, I was reading just under 580 before I had mastuning rework it, that's a hell of an increase from tuning. I thought the sensor had to somehow be reading differently.