i was reading a little on the syclone and found a article what says the syclone was actually rated at 330HP but the tranny was only rated at 280 so they used the 280 rating for advertising purposes can anybody conferm this. if you want to read this for yourself here is the link http://www.syty.org/old/faq.html
hp rating?
- Thread starter colonblow
- Start date
Syclones rock
New member
Re: hp rating?
its 330hp GM underrated it for insurence(sp) reasons
its 330hp GM underrated it for insurence(sp) reasons
VermontTy
Support Our Troops
Re: hp rating?
"So came the 4.3.
Mack King also goes to say:
"...the 3.8L GN Turbo-Charged Buick engine was scheduled to be terminated in RWD configuration by GM and replaced with the current 3.8L revised block w/balance shafts, and reoriented for FWD configurations only. As a result of that decision, Triad Services was told they would have to develop their own version of a turbo-charged V6, for the Syclone, thus began the development of the 4.3L turbo-charged Chevrolet V6.
The 4.3L engine block of choice was a marine version, which at that time had heavy duty, higher quality components than the basic production truck block. It turned out to be impossible, to procure, because the marine version was the most poplar seller with marine outdrive manufactures and all of the production capacity was spoken for.
If I am not mistaken, the marine block with it's more substantial lower end would have allowed the turbo boost to be higher which would have given the Syclone more standard HP. It was decided with the truck production block, the boost would be set lower for reasons of reliability and warranty issues."
That HP was supposed to be set at 340-360HP with around 425ftlbs of torque. The Syclone was to do 12s out of the box.
The advertised HP rating of 285HP... believe it all you want, but its not true. Its more like 300HP, proven by quite a few dyno pulls on stock trucks... just ask Norm.
Of course, this was never to happen, because of GM's flagship corvette. There was no way a truck was going to be marketed that could kick the crap out of the vette.
In fact... all the magazine testing done, most of the numbers and times ran and that were published are not the real numbers at all. GM wanted everything skewed and slower than it actually was. High 12s went to mid 13s. They took numbers from the inexperienced drivers and used them....after all, the truck DID run those numbers....just odd that the PAS/Triad employees would drive the trucks right after and push the real numbers with them.
During the development period, the 454SS was also coming out. GM made it loud and clear that if any comparsion was to be done with the trucks, the Syclone would LOSE and if any photography was done with the Syclone, the Syclone was to be put in back and shun from any big exposure....."
http://www.syty.net/forums/showthread.php?t=29369
"So came the 4.3.
Mack King also goes to say:
"...the 3.8L GN Turbo-Charged Buick engine was scheduled to be terminated in RWD configuration by GM and replaced with the current 3.8L revised block w/balance shafts, and reoriented for FWD configurations only. As a result of that decision, Triad Services was told they would have to develop their own version of a turbo-charged V6, for the Syclone, thus began the development of the 4.3L turbo-charged Chevrolet V6.
The 4.3L engine block of choice was a marine version, which at that time had heavy duty, higher quality components than the basic production truck block. It turned out to be impossible, to procure, because the marine version was the most poplar seller with marine outdrive manufactures and all of the production capacity was spoken for.
If I am not mistaken, the marine block with it's more substantial lower end would have allowed the turbo boost to be higher which would have given the Syclone more standard HP. It was decided with the truck production block, the boost would be set lower for reasons of reliability and warranty issues."
That HP was supposed to be set at 340-360HP with around 425ftlbs of torque. The Syclone was to do 12s out of the box.
The advertised HP rating of 285HP... believe it all you want, but its not true. Its more like 300HP, proven by quite a few dyno pulls on stock trucks... just ask Norm.
Of course, this was never to happen, because of GM's flagship corvette. There was no way a truck was going to be marketed that could kick the crap out of the vette.
In fact... all the magazine testing done, most of the numbers and times ran and that were published are not the real numbers at all. GM wanted everything skewed and slower than it actually was. High 12s went to mid 13s. They took numbers from the inexperienced drivers and used them....after all, the truck DID run those numbers....just odd that the PAS/Triad employees would drive the trucks right after and push the real numbers with them.
During the development period, the 454SS was also coming out. GM made it loud and clear that if any comparsion was to be done with the trucks, the Syclone would LOSE and if any photography was done with the Syclone, the Syclone was to be put in back and shun from any big exposure....."
http://www.syty.net/forums/showthread.php?t=29369
dgoodhue
BuSTeD 4.3
Re: hp rating?
I agree with the 300hp rating, it seem to make sense when comparing it to dyno and other car when you factor into the AWD drive losses and brick aerodynamics. The torque is the one that is way under rated, it was more in the 420-440ft-lbs than the 350-360 fatory ratings, toque rating was suposedly down rated to match the transmission.
I agree with the 300hp rating, it seem to make sense when comparing it to dyno and other car when you factor into the AWD drive losses and brick aerodynamics. The torque is the one that is way under rated, it was more in the 420-440ft-lbs than the 350-360 fatory ratings, toque rating was suposedly down rated to match the transmission.
Re: hp rating?
I thought they were rating real HP at the wheels? I also heard that if the truck was stick it would have alot more ponies, something like 15% of horses are lost with an automatic, is this true?
Some questions I was dealling with upon purchasing mine.
Alot of ranting I know but wanted to get it off my chest and maybe get some answers.
I thought they were rating real HP at the wheels? I also heard that if the truck was stick it would have alot more ponies, something like 15% of horses are lost with an automatic, is this true?
Some questions I was dealling with upon purchasing mine.
Alot of ranting I know but wanted to get it off my chest and maybe get some answers.
Re: hp rating?
Yeah and i can certainly believe that Chevrolet wanted to be seen as the top dog and not let GMC have any of the glory they deserved. Its a real shame actually, becasue the 454SS was a big turd, not even fast at all, nothing but a tire smoker.
Oh wel atleast we all know the truth.
Yeah and i can certainly believe that Chevrolet wanted to be seen as the top dog and not let GMC have any of the glory they deserved. Its a real shame actually, becasue the 454SS was a big turd, not even fast at all, nothing but a tire smoker.
Oh wel atleast we all know the truth.
gjp
another post whore
Re: hp rating?
I agree. I remember seeing the same thing that syclone were between 300-330 hp stock.
I had a guy want to race me in his ss. I took off from the light and the next light he said forget it.
I dont think a manual would gain anything. Automatics will lose top end because of the TC. Thats why we use a locking one and add the switch.
I agree. I remember seeing the same thing that syclone were between 300-330 hp stock.
I had a guy want to race me in his ss. I took off from the light and the next light he said forget it.
I dont think a manual would gain anything. Automatics will lose top end because of the TC. Thats why we use a locking one and add the switch.
jjorgensen52
NHSTE - I'm the only one!
Re: hp rating?
I had heard that these trucks + manuals and boost launches = grenaded front diffs :dunno: ?gjp said:
i want a sy ty
New member
Re: hp rating?
i think theres a reason why they went auto with the turbo. consider the grand nationals and turbo T/A's. how are you gonna spool up the turbo for launch with a stick and not get too high in the RPM's. its possiable but easier for a auto. im a pontiac guy so i know how you guys feel about the chevy/gm boys getting pissed because they cant hangwith other brands inside GM.
http://www.pontiacheaven.org/about pontiac heaven.htm
heres a good link if anyones interested in how pontiac got screwed too by GM. but it was 10 times worse.
i think theres a reason why they went auto with the turbo. consider the grand nationals and turbo T/A's. how are you gonna spool up the turbo for launch with a stick and not get too high in the RPM's. its possiable but easier for a auto. im a pontiac guy so i know how you guys feel about the chevy/gm boys getting pissed because they cant hangwith other brands inside GM.
http://www.pontiacheaven.org/about pontiac heaven.htm
heres a good link if anyones interested in how pontiac got screwed too by GM. but it was 10 times worse.
myclone
Donating Member
Re: hp rating?
There is... the only stick transmissions that could be had would never survive more than about .0000001 seconds the first time some knuckle head side stepped the clutch at 5k RPM. I can only immagine how many warranty claims there would have been if the syty came with a stick trans (the auto tranny warranty claims would pail in comparison).
Same reason you couldnt get a 3rd gen F body with the 350 and a stick.
i want a sy ty said:
There is... the only stick transmissions that could be had would never survive more than about .0000001 seconds the first time some knuckle head side stepped the clutch at 5k RPM. I can only immagine how many warranty claims there would have been if the syty came with a stick trans (the auto tranny warranty claims would pail in comparison).
Same reason you couldnt get a 3rd gen F body with the 350 and a stick.
