Ok without turning this into another flame fest by the anti-banks crew, I'm just curious about their torque dyno chart. Why does it look so different from most others that I've seen? For example, I've got to question why both charts start at 1800rpm and not 0, or at least idle RPM's. It looks like if the graph went to a lower RPM they could claim an even higher lb-ft of torque, unless that is exactly where it began to drop.. But looking at how steep it starts dropping there I can't really picture that.
GM claims that the stock duramax makes its highest torque #'s at 1800rpm. Not 2500RPM (as per Banks chart) or 2700RPM (as per Edge's chart).. In the Edge chart it shows it not even making much torque at 1800rpm, whereas it's almost at peak on the Banks chart but not quite.
I'd tend to think that the Banks torque chart is close to correct, due to the peak torque of the STOCK rating being where GM says it is.. Unless GM is full of crap?!? But if this is so, why are all the others' torque charts so different looking in comparison? For example, look at the one that Edge gives us, the stock torque curve is totally different (and the peak ft-lb comes at a higher RPM than what GM states). It makes me wonder if some of these torque charts are just made up in photoshop. Surely there must be an explanation for this, do different dynos read torque in a different manner to make it look that bad?
Damnit I wish they would show the charts from BELOW 1800rpm so that they'd at least be more comparable looking.
Edited by: Camstyn
GM claims that the stock duramax makes its highest torque #'s at 1800rpm. Not 2500RPM (as per Banks chart) or 2700RPM (as per Edge's chart).. In the Edge chart it shows it not even making much torque at 1800rpm, whereas it's almost at peak on the Banks chart but not quite.
I'd tend to think that the Banks torque chart is close to correct, due to the peak torque of the STOCK rating being where GM says it is.. Unless GM is full of crap?!? But if this is so, why are all the others' torque charts so different looking in comparison? For example, look at the one that Edge gives us, the stock torque curve is totally different (and the peak ft-lb comes at a higher RPM than what GM states). It makes me wonder if some of these torque charts are just made up in photoshop. Surely there must be an explanation for this, do different dynos read torque in a different manner to make it look that bad?
Damnit I wish they would show the charts from BELOW 1800rpm so that they'd at least be more comparable looking.

