[TxChristopher]

So your results are showing the stock MP has a torque advantage down at the RPM that we most often use? In each series it has the advantage two out of three times it has superior torque at 2250 and 2500 RPM (lows to lows highs to highs) which would be also superior horsepower. . . . technically the stock MP also won the HP war with the tune at 3000 RPM 2 out of three times. Your very first pull in the order you showed is an obvious toss out because it is too off versus the rest. Statistical error with dyno's is a problem, hence the need for averages.

So, on average and not a single peak run, what are your conclusions in the most useable RPM ranges for our trucks?

 

[TxChristopher]

I and many others understand the 6000' thing, because things change at elevation, but forget the tune. Most people don't want to retune their trucks. They want to put a part on and roll with it. That's why most don't use the entire LBZ intake system, it requires a MAF remap and most people don't want to jack with that.

Also, re-tuning is skewing the results of the part. Anything can be done when you are jacking with tuning. It's kind of like accepting Berry Bonds homerun records.

demp, did about as accurate of a test as he could, which you should of done to begin with : stock mouthpiece/intake vs. moded mouthpiece/intake, nothing else. The numbers are what they are and that's what you report. Then, if you want to come back and add tuning to the mix and report that, that's fine, but don't try to preach that result as gospel. That's how you get all the 'speculation' out there.

5hp is much different than 30hp

His test doesn't even show 5hp consistently. It is down as much as it is up depending on which run you compare to which run, no clear victory there on power.

Anyone into racing knows 30 horses is HUGE and is EASILY noticed, go back to the early 90's and look at the Camaro vs Mustang wars. Mustangs killed 245 horse IROC's but when the LT1 came out with 275 horses in 1993 the roles were radically reversed. It went from Mustang easily kicking Camaro ass to Camaro easily kicking Mustang ass, total role reversal.

 

[briano]

briano,

Sorry to hear that.

not complaining..just saying thanks to those that do appreciate ones like Demp, or Skleppy, or folks like my myself that do stuff for the other thousands of members at our own cost and time.

 

[way_out_there]

not complaining..just saying thanks to those that do appreciate ones like Demp, or Skleppy, or folks like my myself that do stuff for the other thousands of members at our own cost and time.

briano,

Did you change your avatar at some point? I forget screen names sometimes, but good avatars always seem to stick with me for some reason

I just read thru some of your posted stuff, and if it hasn't been said enough THANK YOU for your contributions! Great how too's!!!

Dang, if you were just a little closer to Houston, I could buy you some beers later this week!:beerchug: I'm hooking up with Rttoys from this site, and hanging out in Texas for 5 days. We'll be at the rodeo Thurs. and Friday I believe.

 

[briano]

Thanks!

nope, same avatar and screen name since the beginning.

enjoy the rodeo, I was just there last Saturday.

 

[demp223]

His test doesn't even show 5hp consistently. It is down as much as it is up depending on which run you compare to which run, no clear victory there on power.

Anyone into racing knows 30 horses is HUGE and is EASILY noticed, go back to the early 90's and look at the Camaro vs Mustang wars. Mustangs killed 245 horse IROC's but when the LT1 came out with 275 horses in 1993 the roles were radically reversed. It went from Mustang easily kicking Camaro ass to Camaro easily kicking Mustang ass, total role reversal.

And thats exactly why I averaged out my numbers.People like numbers.
In the grand scheme of all these numbers we are talking about an average difference of power in the 1% range.Pretty minor.
However the reduction in EGT is SIGNIFICANT and cannot be denied by this swap

I could have easily done the biased marketing thing and took numbers from Pull #4 and compared to Pull #9 and claimed 7hp and 22ftlb gain for the Kodiak in stock tune
Or better yet Compared Pull #1 against Pull#10 and claimed Kodiak winner by 23hp and 42 ft lbs in high hp tune.
It would be true but not ethical nor accurate IMHO and thats why I didnt post it that way.
I took into account progression or degradation of power of each pull as its own fingerprint for that particular run.Thats how it should be IMHO to establish a solid dyno basleine.I averaged the numbers to come up with what I thought was realistic overall gain for stock application.

Look at pull #4.The first pull after 12min cooldown.
Pull #5.Big increase in power.
Pull # 6 basically identical to #5.Thats all LLY mp has to give.

Look at pull #7.The first pull after 12min cooldown.
Pull #8 nice increase.
Pull #9 big increase.Kodiak mp obviously has more to give than LLY and with lower EGT.

The 120 tunes were more for extreme ends of spectrum
.Averageing out the two best runs from each mp the LLY wins by 2.4hp and Kodiak wins by 1.3ft lbs tq. Mind you Kodaik did this with highest temps of all tests and still 125* cooler EGTs.
Hindsight I should have thrown LLY mp back on to test it in those conditions.
Im positive it would not have duplicated its first run.
I wish I could hit his dyno again but with kodiak on first.Im sure it would break 400hp and 800tq with cooler conditions in 120 tune.

 

[demp223]

So your results are showing the stock MP has a torque advantage down at the RPM that we most often use? In each series it has the advantage two out of three times it has superior torque at 2250 and 2500 RPM (lows to lows highs to highs) which would be also superior horsepower. . . . technically the stock MP also won the HP war with the tune at 3000 RPM 2 out of three times. Your very first pull in the order you showed is an obvious toss out because it is too off versus the rest. Statistical error with dyno's is a problem, hence the need for averages.

So, on average and not a single peak run, what are your conclusions in the most useable RPM ranges for our trucks?

I wouldnt say LLY is superior lookin at plots or pulls.I quite see them as almost identical considering minor difference overall powerwise as the dyno sees it.EGTs on the other hand LLY is definitely INFERIOR.
AND NO,Technically LLY LOST.
It lost by 4.7 hp and 4.8 tq in stock tune and LLY lost by 4hp and 13.1tq in 120 tune averaged out.
Take best two runs and Kodiak wins by 4.2hp and 2.7 tq in stock tune.
Take best two 120 tunes and the LLY does win by 2.4hp but loses by 1.3 tq.
However it had distinct cooler temp advantage and yet still producd 125* more EGT than Kodiak did with higher heats.

Plots literally are identical from 2000-3300 rpm which is what dyno charted.
Ill round up here cuz its just so dam close lookinat these plots.
In stock tune starting at 2k rpm appx 475 tq rising to 500tq @2250 rpm then consistently slopes down to appx 430tq @ 3300 rpm.
Hp curve starts at 2k rpm with 200hp consistently rising to 265hp @ 3k rpm and basically staying level to 3300 rpm

120 tune starting at 2k rpm appx 600tq rising to almost 800tq @ 2500 then consistently slopes down to appx 630tq @ 3300 rpm.
Hp curve starts at 2k with appx 230hp rising to appx 380hp @ 2500 then gently slopes up to 395hp @ 2750k rpm,stays pretty flat out to 3100rpm than gently slopes back down to appx 380hp @3300rpm

 

[demp223]

Tx,I believe its your turn to post your numbers that you dynoed as you said you would.
I believe you did the LBZ one correct.Curious as to how it performed over Kodiak weather good or bad.

 

[TxChristopher]

Your theory that the very first test would be better for the kodiak part isn't backed up by your own data, this is the problem with using a theory to try to get the results one hopes for. If the first run is so superior, then why was the first run for the stock part so far out of line? It kills the averages. KILLS them TOTALLY, and is the reason the others are able to demonstrate your "gains". The first run is so far off, we are talking 20 horses and 40 ft/lbs, and its removal vaults the stock piece right past the kodiak tests.

Did you use the first pull in your averaging? Why would you, it is so far off????? No other pull is off by nearly that percentage. I would have done a 4th pull after seeing that the spread between the first and second/third pulls was so far off, the second and third pull and then all of the other series pulls are within 2 or 3 horses yet that one spans as much as 23 horses. Thats a red flag that that pull is invalid for use in determining which part "won".

So yes, technically the stock part produced the best numbers.

 

[TxChristopher]

As for numbers, I couldn't find enough there to make any claim for the superiority of the LBZ part over the LLY part or vice-versa. The theory being pushed is that the more airflow you need the greater the difference will be, or the more you must compress the air the greater the difference will be, but I had 440 rwhp and 1070 ft/lbs working so the airflow was there that is claimed to be "necessary". Safe to say that I was pulling far more air than a stocker would be even at 6000 feet since I was up closing in on twice the power level and compressing to 12 psi more than stock. But the claims that certain people make are nowhere to be found when put to the actual test. It goes to show that one can claim anything they want without actually proving it out and people will take it as fact, run with it, and perpetuate something that is not in fact "real". Might be good for sales I suppose, hence the studies that show placebo has the same side effects as the real medicine does.

I can dyno a truck 10 times in a row without changing ANYTHING and divide the runs into two sets of 5 and one set will be superior to the other, thats the nature of a dyno, the numbers are not "exact". So if not changing anything gets me statistically the same spread as changing something then the part changed isn't proving its worth. If there is a true gain, it will show up in EVERY run and even the lower end of the set will be higher than the best the baseline set has to offer.

At any rate, hopefully people have learned here that the wild claims are just more of the same old BS, because no matter what, it is obvious that 30 horses weren't hiding in the tests.

 

[TxChristopher]

Hey demp, one more thing, not wanting you to take it as I am shooting you down, just want a healthy discussion about this based on facts not theories, so don't take anything I am saying badly. At least you took the time to actually find out, and I applaud you for that.

 

[jolar]

Tx,I believe its your turn to post your numbers that you dynoed as you said you would.
I believe you did the LBZ one correct.Curious as to how it performed over Kodiak weather good or bad.

x2 please

 

[TxChristopher]

x2 please

post #50

 

[Duramaxdave]

Well I'm still happy with the reduced EGT, That only helps with the longevity of my engine. Thanks again to Demp for getting to the bottom of this. TXC, I would of had more respect for you had you stepped up sooner with the results. If you were right there was nothing to fear.

 

[briano]

I'm still going to try and get mine dyno'd. I have a place and can go any time.. it's the "time" part that is the problem. Work owns me!!

 

[SBCNX20]

Well I'm still happy with the reduced EGT, That only helps with the longevity of my engine. Thanks again to Demp for getting to the bottom of this. TXC, I would of had more respect for you had you stepped up sooner with the results. If you were right there was nothing to fear.

There never were any and still are not.

 

[way_out_there]

There never were any and still are not.

He did not post exact numbers, he kinda covered it with the first line of the post:

"As for numbers, I couldn't find enough there to make any claim for the superiority of the LBZ part over the LLY part or vice-versa."

I would assume then, the results were similar to demps? Single digit changes?

 

[SBCNX20]

He did not post exact (any) numbers, he kinda covered it with the first line of the post:

"As for numbers, I couldn't find enough there to make any claim for the superiority of the LBZ part over the LLY part or vice-versa."

I would assume then, the results were similar to demps? Single digit changes?

Just remember that [in red] when he starts marketing his own piece.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dieseldrunk
TXC any up date on your MP.

Yes, I am all over it but want a top quality item before I will turn it loose. Sorry no target date. YET. But it is not dead.


http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3183721&postcount=99

 

[heavenbound]

Oh this is gittin good!!
I dont know what to think any more!

 

[rebel7777]

Oh this is gittin good!!
I dont know what to think any more!

:funnypost