Jump to content

the first person to get an Edelbrock SC on a 6.2!


Recommended Posts

 

It's actually the intake manifold that's different (the truck has one with much longer runners for more low end torque but that hurts top end power), they have the same cam. Once you remove the intake from both engines, you've basically equalized them. If you bolt on the same blower, you should expect roughly the same results at the flywheel but naturally less at the wheels due to the heavier drivetrain. But the gains over stock will actually be larger for the truck with an identical setup. Of course they may change things up a bit (a more conservative tune to be towing safe, etc).

 

That won't be the case with centrifugal blowers though--the Vette intake will allow them to make more top end power than the truck's intake.

 

BTW, C&D tested a CC Denali and it ran 14.1 @ 99 stock. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-gmc-sierra-1500-62l-4x4-test-review

 

A tune all by itself will be worth several tenths even without any more power by getting rid of the torque management at launch and improving shift points.

 

 

 

There's nothing rainbow colored about facts and data. To the contrary, when cammed and blown 5.3's are already cracking 400 RWHP, claiming a cammed or blown 6.2 won't crack 400 is just...stupid? Ignorant? Dumb? I don't know, pick the word you like best.

 

 

Asking to see timeslips of vehicles that do not exist yet is very convenient for you. These trucks have only existed a few months. I don't even know of anybody who has swapped cams in a truck 6.2 yet. Neither do you. Pretending since you haven't yet seen timeslips the potential doesn't exist is really a "ridiculous claim." Give us some time.

 

You like claims, I'll make one you'll love. Mark my words--write this down! Within a year, you will see 6.2 trucks if not crack, come very close to cracking 400 RWHP with bolt-ons and tune only. No cam, no blower. Give us some time, we'll see who has the last laugh.

thank you for this information it was very helpful!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

 

It's actually the intake manifold that's different (the truck has one with much longer runners for more low end torque but that hurts top end power), they have the same cam. Once you remove the intake from both engines, you've basically equalized them. If you bolt on the same blower, you should expect roughly the same results at the flywheel but naturally less at the wheels due to the heavier drivetrain. But the gains over stock will actually be larger for the truck with an identical setup. Of course they may change things up a bit (a more conservative tune to be towing safe, etc).

 

That won't be the case with centrifugal blowers though--the Vette intake will allow them to make more top end power than the truck's intake.

 

BTW, C&D tested a CC Denali and it ran 14.1 @ 99 stock. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-gmc-sierra-1500-62l-4x4-test-review

 

A tune all by itself will be worth several tenths even without any more power by getting rid of the torque management at launch and improving shift points.

 

 

 

There's nothing rainbow colored about facts and data. To the contrary, when cammed and blown 5.3's are already cracking 400 RWHP, claiming a cammed or blown 6.2 won't crack 400 is just...stupid? Ignorant? Dumb? I don't know, pick the word you like best.

 

 

Asking to see timeslips of vehicles that do not exist yet is very convenient for you. These trucks have only existed a few months. I don't even know of anybody who has swapped cams in a truck 6.2 yet. Neither do you. Pretending since you haven't yet seen timeslips the potential doesn't exist is really a "ridiculous claim." Give us some time.

 

You like claims, I'll make one you'll love. Mark my words--write this down! Within a year, you will see 6.2 trucks if not crack, come very close to cracking 400 RWHP with bolt-ons and tune only. No cam, no blower. Give us some time, we'll see who has the last laugh.

.

 

Ur on rainbow boy! No bulkshit dyno graphs either. Show me a time slip, weight and trap speed!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i hate to piss in this sand box, but

there is a guy with a 5.3 and cam + bolt ons and a tune thats putting down 401/381 and ran a 12.91@106

 

granted its a regular cab short bed, weighs less but no doubt the 6.2 would have better numbers than a 5.3

 

http://www.performancetrucks.net/forums/gmt-k2xx-trucks-general-discussion-221/2014-cam-bolt-ons-1-4-mile-530037/

 

and his 1/4 video

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya it's a RCSB, 400 hp with that stuff is possible. Jons sayin with tune only and bolt ons. At the read wheel...I dunnoooo it'll be close one. Might do it tho, honestly I hope it does. I'm a huge fan of Chevy motors they are awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thank you for this information it was very helpful!

 

No problem man. We're going to have lots of fun with these engines!

 

.Ur on rainbow boy! No bulkshit dyno graphs either. Show me a time slip, weight and trap speed!!

 

There will be plenty of timeslips as time goes by and more 6.2 trucks are on the road and more people mod up. Personally I'm going to the track Saturday. Of course, I'm doing it as God intended...my truck will be towing the racecar!

 

That "dynos don't count" thing is funny though. Do you realize how stupid you'd look after proclaiming somebody won't make XXX RWHP, when presented with a dyno showing you to be laughably wrong you proclaim "dynos don't count!"? Good luck with that. :banghead:

 

Jons sayin with tune only and bolt ons. At the read wheel...I dunnoooo it'll be close one.

 

You realize that's a 5.3, right? Accomplishing what you said a 6.2 couldn't do? Hello? McFly? Earth to Chevyboy! :crackup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No problem man. We're going to have lots of fun with these engines!

 

 

There will be plenty of timeslips as time goes by and more 6.2 trucks are on the road and more people mod up. Personally I'm going to the track Saturday. Of course, I'm doing it as God intended...my truck will be towing the racecar!

 

That "dynos don't count" thing is funny though. Do you realize how stupid you'd look after proclaiming somebody won't make XXX RWHP, when presented with a dyno showing you to be laughably wrong you proclaim "dynos don't count!"? Good luck with that. :banghead:

 

 

You realize that's a 5.3, right? Accomplishing what you said a 6.2 couldn't do? Hello? McFly? Earth to Chevyboy! :crackup:

The 6.2 makes 340 to the wheel with a good tune...60hp from a set of long tubes?? Think so?!?! I dunno man

 

I say that cuz dyno's can exaggerate numbers, too many variables. The only thing that won't lie is a time slip, curb weight and trap speed. Come on jon you know this.

 

Meh, people can do whatever they want with their vehicles. Just cause you like to race a car around in a circle doesn't make everybody else's hobbies shit.

 

Do you realize how stupid you would sound if you said "oh my shit dyno'd this much blah blah blah" (which I've seen before) and they bring it to a track and the times they lay down make it obvious the dyno they were on was reading very high. Same thing as what ur saying, it can go both ways buddy. And you know Jon, being a racer a true test of hp isn't a dyno graph. It's a 1/4 mile time. Good for seeing a gain from a baseline sure, but reading true HP track time is where it's at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You realize that's a 5.3, right? Accomplishing what you said a 6.2 couldn't do? Hello? McFly? Earth to Chevyboy! :crackup:

No I did not, I said a BOLTED 6.2 couldn't. Which means BOLT ONS. Which means NO internal work. All you do is try and make me look foolish by putting words in my mouth...I did not say that. In fact that was another whole other argument of ours too. Saying a fully bolted meant cam/valve train work too? Lol no friggin way man.

 

YOU are the one who is saying a bolted/ tune only 6.2 will lay down 400hp. Are you done yet? I'll be waiting to see a time slip...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I did not, I said a BOLTED 6.2 couldn't. Which means BOLT ONS. Which means NO internal work. All you do is try and make me look foolish by putting words in my mouth...I did not say that. In fact that was another whole other argument of ours too. Saying a fully bolted meant cam/valve train work too? Lol no friggin way man.

YOU are the one who is saying a bolted/ tune only 6.2 will lay down 400hp. Are you done yet? I'll be waiting to see a time slip...

60Ft And 1/4 mile

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 6.2 makes 340 to the wheel with a good tune...60hp from a set of long tubes?? Think so?!?! I dunno man

 

There are lots of other bolt ons besides headers. No, a cam does not qualify obviously, but there are lots of others (including intake manifold).

 

I say that cuz dyno's can exaggerate numbers, too many variables.

 

I certainly don't have the time to revisit the high school-level argument for the umpteenth time about how an non-weather corrected run down a drag strip with hundreds of additional variables added in makes a better measuring tool than a measuring tool (maybe NASCAR, ALMS, F1, etc teams know something you don't?), so cliff's notes:

 

You are correct that some chassis dynos do, in fact, have many variables that can alter their output. Load-bearing eddy-current type dynos can operate over a wide range of loads which makes the engine respond (and inertial/frictional losses from the drivetrain) differently and can give widely varying results depending upon how the operator runs it. That's exactly what makes them so valuable for tuning, but alas, it makes them a poor measuring stick.

 

Inertia-only Dynojets, on the other hand, have none of those variables. The operator pushes a button. One button. Unless you purposely fool with the weather measurements there is nothing to "mess with." You can't fool one if you try. While they will vary a bit, of course, depending upon the condition of their bearings, etc, by and large they are very consistent and provide the best measuring stick for power at the wheels we have available.

 

Do you realize how stupid you would sound if you said "oh my shit dyno'd this much blah blah blah" (which I've seen before) and they bring it to a track and the times they lay down make it obvious the dyno they were on was reading very high. Same thing as what ur saying, it can go both ways buddy.

 

The thing is that NEVER happens. EVER. Never, ever, ever. Provided: 1) It's a weather corrected dynojet run and 2) you're actually smart enough to know what the curve it gives you means--you know to look at the area under the power curve as applied to your vehicle's stall speed, gear ratio, and shift points to see your average power at the wheels down the track or integrate them properly over the course of a run and 3) you correct for weather at the track...Your corrected dyno says you have lots of power but your track is in Denver so you car is slow--it's not the dyno's fault it doesn't match, it's yours for being dumb. Or somebody with a much better dyno than you must be exaggerated because he runs so slow in August when you have that timeslip from when they openned the track in January and you ran when it was 40 degrees. You have more power, really you do! The timeslip proves it!

 

Every single example of a dyno sheet not matching track times ever provided by anybody in my 20+ years of listening to internet drag racers contains one of the following: 1) uncorrected dynojet numbers or some sort of eddy current dyno with the parameters all out of whack, 2) people not taking atmospheric conditions into account at the track, 3) people not understanding the curve the dyno provides (peak numbers instead of average that will actually be used by the car on the track, mismatched gear/stall/shiftpoints for the engines power curve, etc).

 

And that's about all the time I have to spend on that nonsense.

 

Saying a fully bolted meant cam/valve train work too? Lol no friggin way man.

 

Of course not. I said with a cam 480 or so would be the upper limits. Without the cam, I foresee 400 as fairly likely.

 

No I did not, I said a BOLTED 6.2 couldn't.

 

No you didn't. I realize when you're making things up as you go it's hard to keep track. So I'll help you:

 

No. No it won't.

 

Those trucks run about 20% drivetrain loss, so what you're saying is a bone stock SBC that puts out 420 or whatever the new one is at the flywheel is gonna gain 180hp at the crank from cam only???? Lololol

 

I've read and watched a pile of threads on the 6.2 because I was gonna buy one. A full out 93 octane tune will dyno 330-350 depending on a lot of factors and I've seen them at the track fully bolted with LT's and a good launch you might hit high 13's...which puts you around 400hp.

 

No way in hell you're gaining 150rwhp with a cam lolol

 

There you say around 400 with a cam, not simply bolt ons. But the really egregious claim is this:

 

7-8 pounds of boost you'll be lucky to crack 400rwhp...maybe with some long tubes/cam you could reach a little over 420.

 

Here you say that WITH bolt-ons, AND with a cam, AND with a blower putting out 8 lbs of boost, a 6.2 might get "a little over" 420. My educated guess is you're off by more than 100 RWHP on this one. But hey, dynos aren't accurate anyway so I guess you can never be wrong no matter how wrong you are! Convenient!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are lots of other bolt ons besides headers. No, a cam does not qualify obviously, but there are lots of others (including intake manifold).

 

 

I certainly don't have the time to revisit the high school-level argument for the umpteenth time about how an non-weather corrected run down a drag strip with hundreds of additional variables added in makes a better measuring tool than a measuring tool (maybe NASCAR, ALMS, F1, etc teams know something you don't?), so cliff's notes:

 

You are correct that some chassis dynos do, in fact, have many variables that can alter their output. Load-bearing eddy-current type dynos can operate over a wide range of loads which makes the engine respond (and inertial/frictional losses from the drivetrain) differently and can give widely varying results depending upon how the operator runs it. That's exactly what makes them so valuable for tuning, but alas, it makes them a poor measuring stick.

 

Inertia-only Dynojets, on the other hand, have none of those variables. The operator pushes a button. One button. Unless you purposely fool with the weather measurements there is nothing to "mess with." You can't fool one if you try. While they will vary a bit, of course, depending upon the condition of their bearings, etc, by and large they are very consistent and provide the best measuring stick for power at the wheels we have available.

 

 

The thing is that NEVER happens. EVER. Never, ever, ever. Provided: 1) It's a weather corrected dynojet run and 2) you're actually smart enough to know what the curve it gives you means--you know to look at the area under the power curve as applied to your vehicle's stall speed, gear ratio, and shift points to see your average power at the wheels down the track or integrate them properly over the course of a run and 3) you correct for weather at the track...Your corrected dyno says you have lots of power but your track is in Denver so you car is slow--it's not the dyno's fault it doesn't match, it's yours for being dumb. Or somebody with a much better dyno than you must be exaggerated because he runs so slow in August when you have that timeslip from when they openned the track in January and you ran when it was 40 degrees. You have more power, really you do! The timeslip proves it!

 

Every single example of a dyno sheet not matching track times ever provided by anybody in my 20+ years of listening to internet drag racers contains one of the following: 1) uncorrected dynojet numbers or some sort of eddy current dyno with the parameters all out of whack, 2) people not taking atmospheric conditions into account at the track, 3) people not understanding the curve the dyno provides (peak numbers instead of average that will actually be used by the car on the track, mismatched gear/stall/shiftpoints for the engines power curve, etc).

 

And that's about all the time I have to spend on that nonsense.

 

 

Of course not. I said with a cam 480 or so would be the upper limits. Without the cam, I foresee 400 as fairly likely.

 

 

No you didn't. I realize when you're making things up as you go it's hard to keep track. So I'll help you:

 

 

There you say around 400 with a cam, not simply bolt ons. But the really egregious claim is this:

 

 

Here you say that WITH bolt-ons, AND with a cam, AND with a blower putting out 8 lbs of boost, a 6.2 might get "a little over" 420. My educated guess is you're off by more than 100 RWHP on this one. But hey, dynos aren't accurate anyway so I guess you can never be wrong no matter how wrong you are! Convenient!

I'm not making shit up buddy, I've been in blown 13's, I've raced them, watched them on 7-8 pounds. Their still a high 13 second truck like that...at 5700lbs.

 

I realize the new DI 6.2 might have a little more, but really? THAT much more? I can't see it happening, the factory numbers are pathetically close to the last generation. Maybe I am a little bit off on my first prediction, but you are too jon. I really can't see a small boost/stock tranny runnin a low 13... Too many things to take into consideration, like I SAID. Show me a time slip if it works out ill shut my mouth forever...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you see?? Quoting stuff out of context again jon, trying to make me look foolish by quoting something that's from a completely different thread.

 

 

You are officially the most annoying person I have ever encountered on the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You win the interwebz job a, you are a master of SBC engines. We should all now down to sir Jon a's ability to make hp out of thin air.

 

I'm done with this thread, I'm done arguing with stupidity. And really weird I might add, going back to old threads, grabbing posts and quoting them in another thread. Taken out of context once again, you my friend win the interwebz.

 

Show me that time slip buddy, really you have nothing to say because until I see one or you do. You can't prove jack shit either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.