MustangWorks.com : Ford Forums - View Single Post

Unit 5302 · 02-13-2001, 06:50 PM

I hate blatant BS. That's what that graph illustrates.

If Dodge released it they need to be sued, but I can't imagine a more inaccurate dyno run.

Look at the curves.

Torque at 1000rpm appears to be at around 400lb/ft according to the graph (hard to read because of fat *** lines). If that was the case, the truck would have about 76hp at that point, not the 220hp indicated. I also cannot believe they would start the run at around 500rpm

Again at 2000rpm based on the crappy fat torque line, the motor would be making 445lb/ft which would mean 170hp, not 260 like shown. At 3000 it would be close to on, at 4000 again pretty accurate about 10hp low according to torque, but then the 5000 it's off by more than 100hp! With 400lb/ft at 5000, it would make 380hp, not 260.

That dyno graph is so misleading it's beyond reason that a major manufacturer could use it, and I'm smelling something stinky.

02-13-2001, 06:50 PM	#17
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	I hate blatant BS. That's what that graph illustrates. If Dodge released it they need to be sued, but I can't imagine a more inaccurate dyno run. Look at the curves. Torque at 1000rpm appears to be at around 400lb/ft according to the graph (hard to read because of fat *** lines). If that was the case, the truck would have about 76hp at that point, not the 220hp indicated. I also cannot believe they would start the run at around 500rpm Again at 2000rpm based on the crappy fat torque line, the motor would be making 445lb/ft which would mean 170hp, not 260 like shown. At 3000 it would be close to on, at 4000 again pretty accurate about 10hp low according to torque, but then the 5000 it's off by more than 100hp! With 400lb/ft at 5000, it would make 380hp, not 260. That dyno graph is so misleading it's beyond reason that a major manufacturer could use it, and I'm smelling something stinky.