New Tundra Dyno

markislive78 · 01-10-2007, 11:36 AM

Thsese things are pretty spunky.....but heavy!

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...9/pageNumber=1

From the article....

Stronger than strong
Our dynamometer test of the Tundra returned a rear-wheel power reading of 321 hp, about what one would expect if you assume drivetrain losses to be 15 percent. We couldn't measure peak torque, as the automatic transmission kept kicking down and we couldn't make a pull through the rpm range of the torque peak.

Quicker than quick
Unleashing this powertrain down the drag strip, we recorded a stunning 0-60-mph time of 6.3 seconds, while the quarter-mile came up in 14.8 seconds at 93.7 mph. Our best efforts came with the traction control switched off, a move that activates Auto limited-slip differential, a brake-based, electronic-limited-slip function. Mind you, this is a Double Cab 4x4 truck that weighs 5,637 pounds.

I imagine a single Cab (4,800lbs) would be fun...lol!

FlimFlamMan · 01-10-2007, 11:39 AM

Pretty impressive stock numbers there.

markislive78 · 01-10-2007, 11:40 AM

Yep a good 50-60 more rwHP than us stock!

BKW · 01-10-2007, 11:43 AM

Bloated HP figures are what car salesmen sell cutomers.

Torque is what drives the vehicle.

1/1/2008...it's all gonna change...only net HP can be used in ads, sales promotions, and other stuff after that date.

New Law...enacted and passed by the Congress and Senate...despite heavy lobbying by GM to the contrary.

Wonder how the semi hemi group will react?

SKEET · 01-10-2007, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markislive78

Thsese things are pretty spunky.....but heavy!

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...9/pageNumber=1

From the article....

Stronger than strong
Our dynamometer test of the Tundra returned a rear-wheel power reading of 321 hp, about what one would expect if you assume drivetrain losses to be 15 percent. We couldn't measure peak torque, as the automatic transmission kept kicking down and we couldn't make a pull through the rpm range of the torque peak.

Quicker than quick
Unleashing this powertrain down the drag strip, we recorded a stunning 0-60-mph time of 6.3 seconds, while the quarter-mile came up in 14.8 seconds at 93.7 mph. Our best efforts came with the traction control switched off, a move that activates Auto limited-slip differential, a brake-based, electronic-limited-slip function. Mind you, this is a Double Cab 4x4 truck that weighs 5,637 pounds.

I imagine a single Cab (4,800lbs) would be fun...lol!

If the dc weighs 5600lbs I guess the huge crewmax will weigh 3 tons.

SKEET · 01-10-2007, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BKW

Bloated HP figures are what car salesmen sell cutomers.

Torque is what drives the vehicle.

1/1/2008...it's all gonna change...only net HP can be used in ads, sales promotions, and other stuff after that date.

New Law...enacted and passed by the Congress and Senate...despite heavy lobbying by GM to the contrary.

Wonder how the semi hemi group will react?

I thought the rwh done on the Toyota would be considered net hp.

SKEET · 01-10-2007, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markislive78

Thsese things are pretty spunky.....but heavy!

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...9/pageNumber=1

From the article....

Stronger than strong
Our dynamometer test of the Tundra returned a rear-wheel power reading of 321 hp, about what one would expect if you assume drivetrain losses to be 15 percent. We couldn't measure peak torque, as the automatic transmission kept kicking down and we couldn't make a pull through the rpm range of the torque peak.

Quicker than quick
Unleashing this powertrain down the drag strip, we recorded a stunning 0-60-mph time of 6.3 seconds, while the quarter-mile came up in 14.8 seconds at 93.7 mph. Our best efforts came with the traction control switched off, a move that activates Auto limited-slip differential, a brake-based, electronic-limited-slip function. Mind you, this is a Double Cab 4x4 truck that weighs 5,637 pounds.

I imagine a single Cab (4,800lbs) would be fun...lol!

Those numbers sound really good but until one group does the different trucks all at the same time we dont know how real those numbers are.For all we know if they had tested a Titan at the same place and at the same time they might of got that good of numbers out of the Titan,I doubt it but you never know.

Blown330 · 01-10-2007, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BKW

Bloated HP figures are what car salesmen sell cutomers.

Torque is what drives the vehicle.

1/1/2008...it's all gonna change...only net HP can be used in ads, sales promotions, and other stuff after that date.

New Law...enacted and passed by the Congress and Senate...despite heavy lobbying by GM to the contrary.

Wonder how the semi hemi group will react?

Don't know where you are getting that from. SAE standards are what is used and GM was the first to validate a vehicle to SAE J1349 (SAE NET) using the procedures outlined in the new J2723 standard. As far as I know that is purely optional but any vehicle manufacturer who wants to use the "SAE Certified Power" in advertising must use the J2723 procedure.

BKW · 01-10-2007, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blown330

Don't know where you are getting that from. SAE standards are what is used and GM was the first to validate a vehicle to SAE J1349 (SAE NET) using the procedures outlined in the new J2723 standard. As far as I know that is purely optional but any vehicle manufacturer who wants to use the "SAE Certified Power" in advertising must use the J2723 procedure.

I type facts, not fiction...The SAE..Society of Automotive Engineers figures don't reflect gross HP....So if the SAE figures are being used now, why did Congress implement a new law to lower the bloated HP figures?

And why did GM lobbyists fight to keep the new law from being enacted?

Read the reports in Automotive News.

For many years SAE NET figures were used, but there's no way the SAE figures reflect current bloated HP posted figures.

btw...I'm also a member of FTE. The subject is and has been discussed...quite a bit. See "Ford vs. The Competition."

Blown330 · 01-10-2007, 04:30 PM

SAE has two published standards J1349 (NET) and J1995 (GROSS). J1349 was recently revised to correct some of the procedures that allowed certain manufactures loopholes in product testing which resulted in inflated figures. GM is the first and so far the biggest advocate of the new, more stringent standards. I have yet to find any mention of the Feds stepping in. Care to cite this Automotive News article? I'd be very surprised as nothing in any SAE International magazine has stated this.

miketan · 01-10-2007, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markislive78

Yep a good 50-60 more rwHP than us stock!

Not necessarily! I believe there are people here with close to 280ish RWHP practically stock. I'd say it's a good 35-40hp more than a Titan. Toyota probably has the ECU tune pumped up a little and the VVT on both intake and exhaust no doubt helps as well.

Get the UpRev tune, full exhaust and CAI (TB coolant bypass and a lower stat) and the Titan will spank it. Add long tubes and it's no contest. The new 6-sp auto definitely helps the 0-60 times though. Hopefully, the Titan will get a 6sp auto in the near future.

The bloated curb weight is going hurt. If the double cab 4X4 tips the scales at 5,600 lbs, the huge Crew Max 4X4 with all the bells and whistles is gonna be a real porker. Probably approaching 6,000 lbs. The only Tundra we really have to watch out for will be the 5.7 single cab short beds. But, at 4800lbs, it looks like they will be porkers too.lol!

When Nissan adds variable cam timing to the exhaust side of the Endurance and fattens up the ECU tune, that new Tundra won't be a problem stock vs stock.

Blown330 · 01-10-2007, 08:38 PM

I'd withold putting much stock in that dyno reading. Can tell by looking at the photo that it's very likely a DynoJet 248. Only see the vehicle as being tied down by the rear axle...which makes me wonder what the dyno operator would have done if those straps had failed. Not a good way to run or get accurate, repeatable results.

JeridJohnson · 01-10-2007, 11:01 PM

I know nothing about dynos but in this pic the front looks strapped and wheels chocked..

docopharm · 01-10-2007, 11:45 PM

holy crap those tailights are huge! sorry, off-topic, but I had never seen them until now...uck.

markislive78 · 01-11-2007, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miketan

Not necessarily! I believe there are people here with close to 280ish RWHP practically stock. I'd say it's a good 35-40hp more than a Titan. Toyota probably has the ECU tune pumped up a little and the VVT on both intake and exhaust no doubt helps as well.

Get the UpRev tune, full exhaust and CAI (TB coolant bypass and a lower stat) and the Titan will spank it. Add long tubes and it's no contest. The new 6-sp auto definitely helps the 0-60 times though. Hopefully, the Titan will get a 6sp auto in the near future.

The bloated curb weight is going hurt. If the double cab 4X4 tips the scales at 5,600 lbs, the huge Crew Max 4X4 with all the bells and whistles is gonna be a real porker. Probably approaching 6,000 lbs. The only Tundra we really have to watch out for will be the 5.7 single cab short beds. But, at 4800lbs, it looks like they will be porkers too.lol!

When Nissan adds variable cam timing to the exhaust side of the Endurance and fattens up the ECU tune, that new Tundra won't be a problem stock vs stock.

Most Stock Titans Dyno 256-270 rwHP..I've seen all the Titan Dyno's since day one! If that thing dyno's 321 stock it's not close...it's safe to say 50-60 rwHp more....A RC will weigh 800lbs less than the tested 14.8sec 4x4 truck. Stock that thing does mid to low 14's. Nothing to sneeze at for stock.