Joined
·
1,154 Posts
how do you guys think is a better set up.
2005 mack z or 2003 or 04 f7 with bikeman f9 or dd f9ss.
i know the mach is a pull rope and 170 ish hp and 118 tq and the 9s in a f7 is alot of work to get it going to the 175hp snd 111 tq.
what do you thiink?
also do u think that the 9s are worth the $
i looked a dyno sheets and the bmp f8 does110.1 tq and 157.3 [email protected] bsfc re at .702....trailable
the bmp9 is 115.3 tq an 177.8 hp @8100 and bsfc are at.593 not trailable
and the f9ss is at109.5tq and 173.1 hp @.705 bsfc ... trailable
if you notice the f9 are not making any more tq than the f8 with single pipe @ both around 110 ish. whats up with that?
is the f9 @ over double the $ worth the same tq and 15 to 19 hpw more?
you have to think that the f9 should have alot more tq than the f8 being either 68 or 111 cc larger! WHAT YOU GUYS THINK?
:beerchug:
2005 mack z or 2003 or 04 f7 with bikeman f9 or dd f9ss.
i know the mach is a pull rope and 170 ish hp and 118 tq and the 9s in a f7 is alot of work to get it going to the 175hp snd 111 tq.
what do you thiink?
also do u think that the 9s are worth the $
i looked a dyno sheets and the bmp f8 does110.1 tq and 157.3 [email protected] bsfc re at .702....trailable
the bmp9 is 115.3 tq an 177.8 hp @8100 and bsfc are at.593 not trailable
and the f9ss is at109.5tq and 173.1 hp @.705 bsfc ... trailable
if you notice the f9 are not making any more tq than the f8 with single pipe @ both around 110 ish. whats up with that?
is the f9 @ over double the $ worth the same tq and 15 to 19 hpw more?
you have to think that the f9 should have alot more tq than the f8 being either 68 or 111 cc larger! WHAT YOU GUYS THINK?
:beerchug: