Sled Puller said:That sounds as silly as setting a pulling track up in LA.![]()
That does sound reeeaaallly silly... ... ... . :-laf :-laf :-laf
Wait, DHRA is doing that in May... .....



Sled Puller said:That sounds as silly as setting a pulling track up in LA.![]()
JFaulkner said:Hey JLackman do you sleep in a hyperbolic chamber like Michael Jackson just to be sure that your atmosphere is always consistent? Wouldn't want you to feel 10 to 12% different each day.
DavidTD said:My Dyno Jet 248C, inertia, uncorrected numbers. SAE was 1003hp.
JLackman said:Thanks.
Inertia - that would be an upsweep or acceleration test right?
The weather must have been good to correct down like that. Is weather a manual input or real time?
Is that SAE J607 or J1349?
Now to be objective the 1003 SAE probably absorbed more inertia hp than COMPs 1128 because it involved accellerating the mass of the driveline and not the engine alone.
I would guess the inertia chassis dynos account for their internal inertia and that it would not be a part of the final numbers.
jeff2 said::{ my correction factor says bad ***!!!
DavidTD said:Acceleration, correct. J1349 real time input. Weather was cold/cool and rainy. I don't remember the actual readings.
Yes, the truck accelerated the drums from ~80mph to beyond 140 and it had to turn the transmission, transfercase, driveline, axle, and tire/wheel combo. My experience here is that most of these trucks running modified factory transmissions see roughly a 20% loss from flywheel to tire hp. This sampled with numerous stock vehicles and a couple that have had engine dyno test. This would put Tim at an estimated 1280fwHP. But as I said, this is a guess at best.
CATCRACKER said:Bottom line there are people who try d/f routes to be the leader in p-pumped truck performance but sheid is still building the baddest fueling monster trucks hands down.
KBaucom said:Nice run. Turbos came on quick that is considering that the run started a 85MPH.
But congrats on the big number.