View Single Post
Old 03-14-2011, 02:02 PM   #1520
Scooby921
Merci Buckets
Moderator
 
Member#: 88606
Join Date: Jun 2005
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Clarkston
Vehicle:
2011 GMC Sierra
'13 JCW

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllAWD View Post
Just what did your 19T and the 16g-XT make? Also, a baseline stock number for the dyno would help.

Talking to my tuner the 19Ts he tuned couldn't beat a vf39, any of the 16gs outran them. On his dyno: stock 2.0L 175whp, tuned TD04 240whp, best TD04/19T ~270whp, VF39 290whp, 16gEVOIII 310whp+
Its hard to make great comparisons between the two cars as they weren't quite the same build and the same guy didn't tune them. Neither of them was done on a dyno, so there are no dyno numbers to compare. I think at peak the 16g-xt was pushing 10g/s more than my 19t when comparing logs. The 19T spooled up around 3000rpm while the 16g-xt was 3600rpm. Power across the mid-range was about the same. 16g-xt wins the peak power battle as it could push 18psi at redline where my 19t dropped off to 12psi.

My 19T was making around 265hp/tq on the airboy dyno compared to the 230hp/tq it made with the stage 2 tune. The 16g-xt was around 275hp on an airboy dyno. But it wasn't my spreadsheet so I have no idea what was used for delta weight and other variables. Having driven both cars I was happier with my 19t than the 16g-xt. IMO the 16g-xt isn't worth the cost over a normal big 16g or evo3 16g.

Both cars had more potential. 16g-xt was pushing 18psi, but had a bigger TMIC. My car was peaking at 20psi, but using a stock TMIC and accordion y-pipe. In the grand scheme the 16g did and will make more power. I had better response and I think overall area under the curve was similar in this instance.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Scooby921 is offline   Reply With Quote