doc5339

The Magnuson with 3.6 Manual Trans is not bad at all, probably as it should be from the factory. Does not push you back in your seat.

Waiting on Robbi at MoTech to quote me the Baby Duramax and 6L70, would also consider doing an L86 (Gen V LS) with 6L80E or 8L80E.

You did right by going the V8 route. Most with automatic transmissions have major tuning issues, I did not; smooth tune with very good power delivery and I still miss my old 350ci SBC in my old 76 FJ40 because it had torque way low and power everywhere.

Billbikes

The 285 hp would be measured at the crank, and probably at some pretty high rpms.

lloydsmale

same could be said about the LS motor though. The 04 was 285 at the crank There more known for higher rpm power then low end torque. I still say jeeps numbers are a bit proud.

lloydsmale

just looked it up the jeep puts out 250 fp of torque the o4 ls motor has 325fps. that's a pretty good increase and both make peak torque around 4000 rpm (to high) I would have to say that putting out the exact same hp with 75 ft lbs less torque kind of shows that jeeps hp rating isn't really accurate. I know hp and torque don't allways go up equally but it usually a lot closer then that.

landoawd

You're comparing apples to bananas, here.
Don't ignore displacement.

lloydsmale

displacement has little to do with it. Look at the ford ecoboost for example or compare a v6 Camaro to a v8 Camaro from the 80s and 90s. Look at a truck my father had. A 90s ss454 chev. Lots of displacement there. Barely made 200hp. About any 4 cyl motor made today has that much hp,. Now granted using the same technology you will make more power with more displacement but that doesn't really factor into this unless were talking a stock 3.6 compared to a stroked one. Only thing I'm saying is that 280 hp isn't happening here. Id like to see one tested on an engine dyno

doc5339

Probably not even at the crank, and definitely not where you use it (below 4,000 rpm).

doc5339

2004 was 12 years ago; the Gen IV and Gen V, torque and hp is well over 300 even on the L83, and the CVVT pretty much makes power available everywhere. The AFM actually allows you to drive under acceleration in V-4 mode. All that on 87 Octane thanks to Direct Injection, CVVT, and AFM.

The LS3 (Gen IV) and L86 (Gen V) are well above 400 hp/torque at the crank.

Ajkaz

Remember torque is a measurement and HP is only a calculation based on measured torque at a particular RPM. What your ignoring is the RPM in which the stated HP is made, likely well over 4k RPM. Peak torque RPM does not relate to peak HP RPM in the way you are thinking.

HP = (RPM * TQ) / 5252

You can plug both of your engine specs in and see the differences in the curves. Also lookup the peak HP RPM for both motors to see the difference.

landoawd

Don't go changing the variables and bringing cucumbers into this. We can delve into volumetric efficiency, if you'd like...

Pull the engine out dyno that bad boy. The burden of proof rests with you.

I will add that turning heavy wheels and 35s, I believe the crank HP rating. It's reasonable power for a brick.