the out come on 650-700hp
- Thread starter jgt1982
- Start date
Electric...
No, I am not an electric waterpump guy. Have customer's that had issues with them more so than factory setups because of flow and pressure(or lack there of). We pin the stock one and seems to work good and haven't had an issue in a long time. Welding them doesn't work good becuase of how the shaft is heat treated so pinning was the next logical step.
Ahhhh haaa, thank you for sharing that with me Mark.:hug: I had not heard of pinning them yet...
Lol, yeah as much as people love to hate my dyno it is where I find all kinds of issues like this. I have broke many lb7/lly waterpumps on the dyno at high rpms when I let off the throttle. Did the whole weld thing and then had one fail(actually ripped the end of the shaft off where the heat treat stopped) and had a metalurgist inspect it and that is when when switched over to pinning them. It's not the easiest thing to do since the end is heat treated, we put them in the CNC mill with a fixture we made and then use center drill/end mill to go through the hub and shaft on both ends. Like I said no issues yet to-date. I have had multiple electric waterpump trucks get really good and HOTT on the dyno and that is why I am not a fan of them when making big hp. To each his own and this works for me.
People used to talk about the ficm not having enough processing power for accurate injections much past 4k rpm. How are people getting around this? Or is everyone just pretending its not a problem? I know a lot of lb7s built or not that run some big rpms and seem to do just fine.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
17% I think, Lose... 1200ft/lbs to 1000ft/lbs. Absolutely you are going to notice that!! Most guys can tell the difference in 20 ft/lbs let alone 200!! 200ft/lbs is the difference of sustaining 65MPH in OD with a Load or having the trans hunting because the engine doesnt have the balls to pull it...
Plus, when you pull the torque out you are changing where that peak Torque number is going to peak... Weakening your Lower RPM band forces you to run a lower gear, which turns more RPM, which more than likely puts you back into your peak torque, which is probably the same as or closer to the amount of torque you would have had, had you just had the testicular fortitude to grin it out and run OD, just without the additional load of OD of course... More RPM also means more duty cycle, more injection events, higher fuel consumption, possibly higher EGTs, more heat soak.... blah blah blah
See its a viscuous cycle... Newtons 3rd law. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
High RPM theorys are fine, they work, when your racing, and only worried about stop light to stop light runs.
Me I prefer torque, that punch out of the hole, that grunt under load. If I prefered a gutless torquless wonder towing, Ida stuck with my 01 HD with the 6.0. I like pulling 6th gear in my LBZ with my 32' gooseneck, and 10,000# tractor at 70 mph, and still getting 12 mpg...
Caleb
My truck is a gutless wonder then? Ive got easily 300 passes in my truck all 12.3's-11.8's. Over a 4 year span. Guess what my gutless wonder is still kicking. You can't have both torque and hp in a stock engine.
20 ft/lbs? Really? I know for a fact that if you lost 20ft/lbs you would not notice it. I am also sure that if 1000ft/lbs isn't enough tq to pull what you are pulling 1200 probably won't be enough either. We're not talking about sled pulling we're talking about towing on the street. I doubt anyone but you would call 1000ft/lbs a "torqueless wonder". If you have a built engine then you can make all the tq you want i guess. Most guys don't have a built engine so they are stuck with tunes that keep the tq down. IMO the extra 200ft/lbs is no where near worth it compared to having straight rods. One more thing. My peak tq is around 2200 rpm. At 70 mph I'm way closer to my peak tq than i would be if i was in 6th(if i had a 6th).
I call BS on being able to feel 20 ft-lbs if that is the only change.
I'm going to run whatever Josh tunes my truck to. He's the man and I trust his work 100%! I won't hold him responsible if I have a failure.:thumb:
Now if I run 13's after the twins this weekend I might be on his a$$ a little!! lol :roflmao:
I'm going to run whatever Josh tunes my truck to. He's the man and I trust his work 100%! I won't hold him responsible if I have a failure.:thumb:
Now if I run 13's after the twins this weekend I might be on his a$$ a little!! lol :roflmao:
Can you tell when by the way that the truck drives, that its time to change a fuel filter? How much lose do you think you experience when that time comes, and you notice? 20ft/lbs? What about when your air filter is plugged and you notice the truck is running pretty sluggish? What do you think is lost? 20 ft/lbs? How about low rail pressure? Stating you dont notice 20ft/lbs is like saying you didnt notice a difference adding a lift pump on a maxxed out EFI tuned truck, maybe a guy doesnt, but most I know do.
Better yet, stating that you dont notice 20ft/lbs blatantly discredits the guys that are spending $399 to do drop in Batmo wheel installs, for a 10-20 RWHP and 20-40 RWTQ gain... Some guys will talk up a storm how much more awesome it is, and how much better they drive... because they come on faster and make roughly 20-40 ft/lbs more tq across the curve. Suppose those guys are lieing?
I dont have a built engine. I put 100,000 miles on my old LB7 with 500+HP on a stock bottom end and stock head bolts. It spent 50,000 miles at its "advertised" HP of 585RWHP, per Mark at Danville (he probably still has the graph). My "Tow" tune dynoed right at 500/1000 at DC Chassis dyno, which is the tune it lived at no less than 50,000 miles. It towed almost every single day for two years straight, sometimes as much as 32,000 Gross weight. When the heads did finally come off at 150,000 miles, were the rods short? Yup, sure were. Were they out of GM Spec? Nope, they still had protrusion out of the deck. And Paint, I'll challenge that 50,000 miles at no less than 500/1000 towing as heavy as I did for hours on end, is far harder on rods than any drag race of even a 7000# truck. In fact I know that for a fact. More motors are blown up on the street, than are ever blown at a track, whether asphalt or clay.
Stating that you can not feel a 200ft/lb difference is like stating that you cant tell the difference between a stock tune and a mid-level street tune. 200ft/lbs was near the difference in torque between my "tow" tune and my max effort tune in my LB7. It was a big difference. 200ft/lbs is 1/3 of the stock tq rating of a Dmax.
Look at it this way. Say your towing 15,000 lbs. And in a 5 speed Alli you set your cruise at 70 mph which depending on tire is roughly 2000 RPM. One guy has "lets turn RPM and save motor tuning" and the other has "I dont care Im gonna build it anyway tuning"
Truck A: only makes 500 ft/lbs of torque at 2000 RPM, and finds that on most grades the truck is down shifting to 4th in order to pull the hills. With the 600 or so RPM jump, the truck is now cruising in 4th @ 70 MPH @ 2600 RPM which is making roughly 1000ft/lbs of tq.
Truck B: makes 700 ft/lbs of torque at 2000 RPM, and finds that on most grades the truck will lug down and pull thru without downshifting.
So of the two trucks, which truck is working harder? Which truck is being subjected to more stress? Which truck will consume more fuel? Which truck is more than likely to run into an overheat situation?
The difference of 200ft/lbs...
Caleb
Last edited:
We're not talking about 500 vs 700 ft/lbs of tq we're talking about 1000 vs 1200 ft/lbs of tq. In every situation i can imagine that you would run into on the street 1000 ft/lbs will be more than enough for what the rest of the truck can handle towing. Why have 1200 ft/lbs when 1000 will do? What i am getting at is IMO your chances of having short rods are way greater at 1200 than at 1000 and i don't think that the extra 200 ft/lbs is worth the extra risk.
My Colorado made 267ft lbs and 247rwhp, and it definitely has axle wrap because of the monster torque.
1000ft/lbs and 1200ft/lbs are peak numbers. Our means of measuring. 500ft/lbs vs 700ft/lbs is estimated tq numbers of those two trucks at 2000 RPM. The trucks dont cruise around at peak all the time... I understand what you are saying, but with less tq at lower RPM, causing the nescessity to downshift, pushes you back into your peak TQ. Therefore, the truck that peaks at 1000ft/lbs with soft tq numbers at low speed, that has to run 4th rather than OD, now has to spend its life towing at its peak of 1000ft/lbs. Whereas the truck the peaks at 1200ft/lbs with slightly more aggressive TQ at low speed, can pull OD without downshifting, and can spend its life below peak TQ.
My theory, its 6 one way half a dozen the other. You pull TQ at low speed, forcing more RPM, which in a DMax typically puts you at peak TQ at cruise, your subjecting the rods to more TQ for a sustained amount of time, rather than the truck that is more aggressively tuned for low end TQ and can pull the load in OD. Eitherway you still end up with short rods. Just a matter of how long it takes for them to show.
Caleb
I couldn't care less about "towing grunt" lol I care about racing I tow sea doo's 5 times a year that's it.
Caleb if I read your post correctly it sounds like you have it opposite.
It takes xxx amount of torque(energy) to keep the truck moving. If you downshift and make that power at a higher rpm, less "torque" is placed on the rods. Likewise if you make that "torque" in overdrive and do not downshift, more load is placed on the rods due to the lower rpm.
Sent from my iPhone.
It takes xxx amount of torque(energy) to keep the truck moving. If you downshift and make that power at a higher rpm, less "torque" is placed on the rods. Likewise if you make that "torque" in overdrive and do not downshift, more load is placed on the rods due to the lower rpm.
Sent from my iPhone.