DeTomaso Mailing List: November 2000, Message #93

> 
> Mike, I hate it when you are right. I knew I needed to take DeTomaso's claims 
with a shaker of salt, but you are right about the Truckload. 
> 
> Today I finally got around to doing some tests with the G-tech. This is a 
useful excercise for EVERYONE, because you can learn a lot about your motor. 
Using the G-tech means you need to drive more or less systematically, 
methodically. Straight runs up to redline in each gear and shift. By repeating 
this many times you learn a lot about the characteristics of your motor.  I 
learned that this one TOTALLY runs out of steam at 5500 rpm, I'm not even sure 
if I CAN rev above this, but doing so would be useless anyway. 
> 
> My first few runs I decided I'd measure horsepower. I read the instructions, 
and it said to enter the vehicle weight in pounds. This seemed odd to me since 
the rest was all metric, but I re-read the instructions and it clearly said to 
enter pounds. I entered something like 3600 pounds and did my first run. 
Awesome! I had 470 rear-wheel horsepower! What a kick-ass engine I had! Well, it 
didn't quite seem right. So I changed the weight to 1620 for kg, figuring that 
there must be a mistake in the directions, everything else was metric, the 
weight probably outta be too. Back to reality. 

I also noticed that the user manual said to enter the weight in pounds, yet it 
said that the "U" in the display disappears when you go above 999kg:s, so I 
figured the manual was wrong as it clearly says "metric version".

> 
> I did several 0-100km runs, and they were educational. No snickering, please. 
My times were all in the high 6's, with a couple in the low 7's. Thomas Tornblom 
had his times all in the low 5's (I saved your e-mail until I could do my own 
runs, Thomas...) with a similar engine. My 1-2 shift was anything but lightening 
fast, but even so I am entirely underwhelmed by these times. 

Now that's strange. AFAIK the only thing that is not stock on my motor is the 
Holley 650DP (4777, mech sec) on a Holley Street Dominator intake. The previous 
owner did buy both from DeTomaso.

Where were you (altitude) when ypu performed the tests? At 1500 meters you only 
have around 80% of the normal pressure, and I assume this translates to only 80% 
of the power at sea level.

I live close to sea level so my runs were probably done with a relatively high 
pressure. Stupid me didn't notice that even though my wrist watch has a built in 
barometer :-/ Could be interesting to compare varying altitudes and weather 
conditions next summer.

Have you checked everything? Ignition timing? Shortly after I bought my car I 
replaced the wires and checked the timing and it was way off. Sorry I didn't 
have the G-tech then. 

> 
> I changed the settings to get maximum hp, and couldn't remember exactly how 
much my car weighed in KG. I set it at 1620, since that was a number that looked 
reasonable on the only official paper I couldn find in the car - the original 
Austrian registration. After further scrunity I think that 1420 was the car 
weight empty and 1620 the weight fully loaded? Again, Thomas set his G-tech to 
1500 kg. With this weight setting, I got a mere, well, no snickering here, 202 
rear wheel hp. This from an engine that DeTomaso advertised as being 350hp. 
That's an AWFUL lot of drivetrain loss..... 
> 
> I suppose I need to know the true weight in order to accurately know how many 
hp the motor develops, but it sure doesn't develop what DeTomaso said, I would 
guess it left the factory with 300 at the crank? Unfortunately I think Mike is 
right, they dropped in a plain-Jane 351C truck motor, and despite changing the 
carb, it is still a truck motor. I literally don't think it will turn over 5500 
rpm...

My engine will relatively quickly reach red-line, but the valves start floating 
above about 6k. I have no idea how acurate the tach is.

> 
> My seat-of-the-pants G-tech told me that my '72 with the recent rebuild would 
blow the GT5-S into the weeds. The numbers sort of back it up. These tests tell 
me that the motor isn't developing what it ought to, also. But after thinking 
about this yesterday, I think when I sell the '72 I'll probably go the stroker 
route for this car to get the kind of performance it ought to have...
> 
> Charlie McCall
> 1972 DeTomaso Pantera #3847 (for sale)
> 1985 DeTomaso Pantera GT5-S #9375
> "Raising Pantera Awareness across Europe"
> http://briefcase.yahoo.com/gt5s_1985
> 
> >>> <MikeLDrew@aol.com> 11/02/00 12:39AM >>>
> 
> In a message dated 11/1/00 1:31:26, Charlie.Mccall@haworth.com writes:
> 
> << ***Maybe, maybe not. This car was built with the "sport" option, the 
> original paperwork lists 350hp. At did come from the factory with a Holley, 
> so at least that part is correct. As has been discussed on this list before, 
> though, many of DeTomaso's claims have to be taken with a shaker of salt...  
> >>
> 
> >>>More like a TRUCKLOAD of salt!  I'd expect a bone-stock, low-compression 
> truck motor with nothing changed internally.  Low-compression, 
> low-performance (relative to your early car.)  It's got a Holley, and that's 
> it.
> 
> There's always a CHANCE that somebody who know what he was doing poked around 
> in there, but I wouldn't bet on it!
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 

Thomas