Nissan Titan Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Guys,

I'm cleaning my slate. Notice I removed my bhp and btq numbers out of my sig. It's up too you all...


It would be nice to come to a Club TiTan % number that we can use in the Post Your Dyno Runs Here thread in Performance Mod Section...

Round off to nearest % you think it is...

Feel free to chime in on a 2WD TiTan too.

Let's see if we can come to a general consensus. It's up too you guys...



Thanks,


Finn
__________________
Finn
2004 TiTan King Cab 4x4 SE Silver
Big Tow, OffRoad Package, Utility Package
Rockford Fosgate
Volant CAI
Gibson Stainless Extreme Duals
Husky Floor Liners
Cordura Seat Covers
Royal Purple Throughout
Dyno Proven SAE Results
275.86 rwhp
341.59 rwtq
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,705 Posts
20% sounds good to me but might be more like 25%
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
SMOKEDYA2 said:
20% sounds good to me but might be more like 25%
I appreciate your input SMOKEDYA2 and while I'm at it your research with the G-Tech :) ...I tend to agree...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,319 Posts
I'm guessin most are at 20% based on several base dynos (mine incl) that were around 256hp SAE at the wheels. Add 20% and that gives you around 307hp at the crank, only 2 above Nissans advertised rating. Of course there are exceptions!

I don't necessarily agree with others who say our motors are purposely underrated by Nissan at 305/379. Afterall, look at Nissan's competition....why wouldn't they rate this motor higher if they could? That's what Dodge did with the "hemi", and look where that's gotten them....they are bad-mouthed on every truck forum I've seen because of the overrating of that motor. Dodge will be lucky if they escape a class-action law suit over that deal.

I think on older 4wd trucks, 25% loss is probably more accurate, but not with newer technology drivetrains which seem to do a much better job of minimizing friction losses. Just my .02 worth.


Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
RockyMtnTitan said:
I'm guessin most are at 20% based on several base dynos (mine incl) that were around 256hp SAE at the wheels. Add 20% and that gives you around 307hp at the crank, only 2 above Nissans advertised rating. Of course there are exceptions!

I don't necessarily agree with others who say our motors are purposely underrated by Nissan at 305/379. Afterall, look at Nissan's competition....why wouldn't they rate this motor higher if they could? That's what Dodge did with the "hemi", and look where that's gotten them....they are bad-mouthed on every truck forum I've seen because of the overrating of that motor. Dodge will be lucky if they escape a class-action law suit over that deal.

I think on older 4wd trucks, 25% loss is probably more accurate, but not with newer technology drivetrains which seem to do a much better job of minimizing friction losses. Just my .02 worth.


Steve
I was waiting to hear from ya man. I see your logic and very good points indeed. I really wish I dynoed stock. I only did after the Gibson Mod and if memory serves I believe it was 264 SAE. Well within the parameters of possibility's for the gains and such IMO. Torque is where I really seemed to gain alot after the Volant. Your gains are damm impressive as well.

On the other hand I've seen stock dyno's that have been higher than 305 including 20%. As you say there will be exceptions...As far as Nissan underrating the Titan I've heard the argument they did it for insurance, EPA and sandbagging reasons. Who knows...

The infamous Hemi is a good analogy...


20 to 25% is my approximation as well. Research that I've done suggest more toward 25% for the bigger tires (33's instead of 31's) on the Titan from what I've read but that's why I'm doing the poll and I'm glad I did...



Thanks for your post RMT!

Until next time...


Cheers,

Mike

.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top