Ok. So just to make sure I have this clear, I can take my 2006 M6 GTO that makes ~340 peak RWHP stock, get it tuned with your software, and walk away with ~390 peak RWHP stock. Correct?

No comment.

Thanks.
Bob

 

Someone over at GMInsidenews pointed out that if they had selected tow mode for the Silverado than there wouldn't have been a delay.

 

Do they have actual hard proof on this?

If so, why have to settings then? Does it cause harm to always put the truck in tow/haul mode?

I've always wondered about that in my Av...

 

I know what I'm talking about and I'm not talking about rwhp. That's 50 fwhp! provided you use PULP.

Thanks for your interest. I do tune my own vehicle.

 

that sucks, first stop after i drove my truck off the lot would be to get it tuned

one thing i also noticed was the crappy approach angle the silverado has... its nearly half as bad as the other two trucks, i would hope the z71 was better but i think the base 4x4 model should be way better than it is.

 

I don't.

But anyway, so lets play this game....50 flywheel HP - given a typical 15% power loss - should equal ~42 RWHP. Correct?

So let me rephrase/correct my question/statement: You're saying that through tuning alone (via a chip, reflash, etc), you can pick up ~42 RWHP in an otherwise bone stock LS2?

Thanks.
Bob

PS....Premium (PULP) is recommended for LS2s (Stateside), so that's not an issue.

 

3rd time's the charm, Bob. Hopefully SSbaby has the tuning parameters for you. anyway, premium unleaded in Australia is higher than what it is over here. the article below suggests a minimum of 95.

http://motormouth.com.au/myresources/fueltypes.aspx

 

I wouldn't use your 15% loss calculation, I'd use 25-30% driveline loss... I would say around 30rwhp would be the go.

Have a read here... http://www.chipmaster.com.au/monaro.html.

1 kW = 1.34 hp

Sorry to digress people... but Mr Bob Cosby is a non believer and is quite persistent.

If you're still a non-believer Bob, I can't help you.... but lots of LS1/LS2s here get a 40 rwkw (=55rwhp) gain from MCAI, 2.5" exhaust, and flash edit for PULP.

 

Not really, you just count your RONs and MONs differently, that's all.

Have a look here.

e.g. 93 PULP in the US is equivalent to 98-100 PULP in AUS.

 

Really? I have real live data that shows an engine make ~390 HP on a engine dyno, and ~345 RWHP on a dynojet Chassis dyno (SAE). No changes to the motor. T5 tranny. Do the math.

Additionally, here's an article you wrote on the this very subject: http://www.ls1-australia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=91. Why no mention of "25-30%" in that article? BTW, I know Lee Bender and Paul Svinicki, and happen to agree with their conclusion.

Further, given a 400 HP rating, and using a 25% loss, that would yield RWHP numbers of 300 for an M6 GTO. Is that the real world case?

Cool. They use 30% (or at least did in that article). And? Why didn't you use them in your article if that is what you believe? Once again, I point to realworld examples of LS2 dynos - you just don't see 300 RWHP LS2 GTO and your article above.

We can agree on this. I think you're full of bull trying to convince people that you can pick up 50, 42, or even 30 RWHP on the average bone stock LS2 with just a dyno tune. Been around EFI and dynos too long.

It is interesting though that we have gone from "50 hp" to "30 RWHP". That's a 40% loss, in case you didn't know.

So color me a non-believer....with data to back it up.

Well gee wally, I don't think we were talking about other mods, now were we? I'm quite aware of what "bolt-ons" will do with an LSx series engine.

Perhaps "down under" the factory calibration is WAY conservative and that is the difference.

There....you have an "out" now.

Bob

PS...agree totally on the octane ratings.

 

Think of it as skip shift in our cars. It is probably done for emissions/fuel economy reasons.

Back on topic, the performance of the 6.0 was a bit disappointing. The Silverado beat the Tundra in every other aspect in the review. I would have thought the 6.0 would give the Silverado enough to basically negate the advantage of the new 5.7 in the Tundra.

 

No, that is relavent to the current topic. Some say that the faults of power delivery of the 6.0 tested would have been solved by putting in tow/haul mode.

Thats why I'm wondering, does it really make that much of a difference? Does it really add more stress to the drivetrain then if I flip this mode on all the time (hauling or not), on the older trucks and on the newer gmt-900 trucks?

I can imagine accel and hauling times would be imporved with a 6 speed in the Gm trucks. There's times where I think an extra gear in between would be perfect in my Av's 4 speed. Not to mention tq management between shifts softening everything up.

 

Hi Bob,
Auto 2wd LS2 TB SS's with PCM re-calibration only can see as much as ~35rwhp gains.

I think THAT is quite significant, and I don't think they have the 4 second delay as mentioned in this thread.

With that being said, I think getting a ~40rwhp gain from the Silverado, at SOME POINT along the graph, is possible.

Mike

 

Mate, calm down.

For starters, I didn't write any article but posted it for reference on my site from a Freud forum. It's up to individuals to agree or disagree with the article I linked (not wrote).

And where exactly did i mention bone stock in my post? I didn't. You did? I said 50 hp and I stand by it. You mistook it for 50rwhp. It's your problem for not reading posts properly, Mr!

Another problem with your reading I want to point out... nowhere did I mention LS2... only 6.0L. I'm surprised you haven't heard of L76 and L98?

I guess you're having a bad day... and trying to pick a bone with someone. Well, not interested Mr!

As I said, you don't believe me or the article I linked, it's your problem, not mine. I can't help you.

Have a nice day!

 

All things are possible, but I'd like to see it first (dyno graphs on the net is fine) before I'll believe it. No offense.


"Mate", I have no reason to be anything except calm.

Ah. So you linked it, updated it with other data from other people, etc, but don't necessarily agree with it. Gotcha. And of course, it is part of your "Frequently Asked Questions" area.

Ok - so I'll ask you - do you agree or disagree with the "reference" article I linked from your page?

Ah, cute. Ok. I guess you could see 50 hp (rear wheel or otherwise) with just a PCM tune after installing various engine modifications that were outside the normal operating parameters of the stock tune.

Surely that's what you meant, and I just misunderstood.

I think you're full of back-pedaling bologna, and stand by it. But I'm also willing to let it go.

I certainly implied such initially. Your response was interesting (to be nice), which lead into the RWHP statement, which lead into the driveline loss, and which finally led into the current state - which is "I stand by it". No evidence or anything else, but that's fine. I'm sure you have nothing to prove. Certainly not to me.

Oh contrare my friend - I read the post exactly as it was written.

Let me turn that around on you - nowhere did you mention flywheel hp....only 50 hp.

What's the difference?

But lets go to the LS2 for a sec....given that it is a 6.0L....what can you pull out of a 6.0L LS2 with just a PCM tune?

Don't be. For me, an L98 has always been a 350 cid small block chevy, circa mid 80s to early 90s. The L76 was a 60's era 327 (I had to hunt that one - always thought an engine of that designation was available in the 70's, too).

I had never heard of L76's and L98's that seem to pertain to Aussie cars. Now I have.

So I guess these are the motors that you gain 50 HP with using just a tune?

You wish. I "picked a bone" with you because I didn't believe your statement.

And for not being interested, you sure replied a lot.

Contrare - I do believe the article I linked. Do you believe the article I linked? Specifically that which relates to driveline loss?

I don't believe your 50 hp gains though. Sorry.

Likewise. BTW, do you sell used cars on the side?

Bob