A few years ago they did this on another forum, they made graphs using proven power and torque figues only, all with the same capacity engine (5litre) but all other specs were totally random.

Only things taken in to account is boost and power/torque, but still came out with an interesting corrolation....





Power seems more sensitive to other changes, but torque follows boost bloody closely.


Maybe something similar should be done on here too, just out of interest? Obviously it will take someone to plot it all on a graph, and people to post up their numbers, but it would be interesting all the same.

 

I don't really see a point to that to be honest. There are too many variables not kept constant so in what way is any of the above a fair comparison? The equations per line factor in too many variables not kept constant.

 

What you on about?

There ARE millions of variables, but as those fuckign graphs show, regardless of all the variables, it comes out pretty fucking close just going by boost...

 

That may be the case in that situation, who's to say it will be the case given ANY engine? You are suggesting by taking those equations I will get a rough output of what my car makes JUST on what boost it has? And the only factor considered is a stock head and aftermarket head. If I told you I had a 5.0 Mustang engine with 23psi boost, you could tell me my bhp and torque output accurately? What is the error margins of those graphs? Did the person producing them give what the errors were?

For example I could be running a baby turbo on 20psi or be running a fucking mahoosive fucker on 20psi. Outputs would be a lot different surely?

 

The stock and aftermarket head is NOTHING to do with this, they just added that out of interest, its totally irrelivant to us.
Nobody uses stock heads unless its a 100% standard engine and they have no money and just building a car from scrapyard bits.

What you said is my point, it would be interesting to see if YBs also follow this similar bhp or torque corrolation, dont see why not, the 5.0 isnt magic, its just an engine...

There are millions of variations in the engines above, they have a LOT more variations than in YB tuning, countless different turbo sizes and makes, manifolds, cams, heads, compressions, everything, as there isnt a set way to do things like in Cossies and RSTs.
But they STILL ended up with that suprisingly close corrolation.
Going by that, YBs or RSTs should be even closer to the average line maybe?

Which is my point. Interesting.

 

I have created a quick SR20 one (i'm a bit dubious about some of the torque figues and they run pussy boost). I'll up load it at lunch time, it would be intresting to see a YB one.

 

Yb's from the people I know well will have a MUCH higher standard deviation from the norm than on those graphs I reckon.
But maybe you are right that the scene as a whole will have a lower standard deviation.

Rod's for example, has torque figures that would sit him WAY WAY off the line.


Would be very interesting to see though I agree, if only cause it would put into perspective just what people are managing to achieve relative to each other.

The only thing I would say though, is it would HAVE to be all on pump fuel to really have any meaning at all.

 

Well thats the thing, common sense would say that, but its not the case with those engines, and the specs are MUCH more varied than on YB's, so you never know.

And what the graph does do, is make you look closer at the ones that stand out from the norm, as they clearly the ones worth looking at.

 

The ones far above the trend line would either be really well spec'd or they are lying

 

More varied than from a T25 to a GT42R, which is the variety on here from the engines?

The figures on that graph go from over 400 to 1200 bhp.

I wouldnt say that is more variation than from the 204 to 800 that we have on here over a similar variation of boost.

In fact, quite clearly it isnt.

I think the YB tuning game is more varied than you give it credit for



What I think would be the most interesting thing to do, would be one graph with lots of different types of engines on it, so YB's, those 5 litre lumps, bike engines etc.

and show torque per litre per pound of boost absolute

I reckon there would of course be variation, but I think less than people would expect.

 

I KNOW the 302 tuning game is more varied than you give it credit for

And the figures on that graph go from 200bhp to 1100bhp and 250lbft to 1100lbft, much wider than it will on YBs at both ends.

Those cars go from NON turbo stock engines, to twin T25 on a stock engine, to race fuelled thumper turbo'd monsters. There is no set way of tuning them like YBs, I doubt there more than 2 cars with the same sorta turbo or turbos on that whole graph.

They go from stock iron heads to iron gt40s to loads of different brands of aftermarket heads, each countless valve, port, runner and chamber sizes, many even with ports and plugs in different places, again, doubt there more than 2 cars with the same type head.

Same goes for cams, the variation they use is riduclous, and same for compression, id bet it varies from 7s to 11s.

Inlet and exhaust manifolds too, I doubt more than 2 cars run the same.
The exhaust manifolds are stock ones adapted, log ones, tubular ones, all kinds of lengths and bores.
Inlets are similar, ridiculous amounts of styles and sizes used, not to mention some carb and some injection.

And you think there is more variety here? I certainly dont, not by a long shot.

BUT despite all that, there is a bizzarely close corrolation between it all, especially in torque, so it would be interesting to see if its the same on YBs, as no reason it shouldnt be with all engines, making it an interesting thing to do if someone can be bothered, no matter how much you are trying to pit it down.

Like the drugs thread, its probably best you understand the other side of the argument first.

 

I know people with YBs from 6s to 12s though?
And I bet there is more LCA variation on here than from that chart too, as anyone with a set of verniers can change it on here, but with single cam engines, its a custom grind just to change your LCA be even 1 degree.

I know people with everything from N/A YB's on carbs, upto Rod with his GT42R engined monster.

I dont agree there is just a set way of doing things at all, if there is, then where does martins longblock fit into that, or rods engine, or mike rainbird on his ITB bit cc setup, or the N/A converted cars?

Sure there is a mainstream, as with any car that is turbo from the factory, as no point changing manifolds if you dont need to, but on the edges of that, there is a massvie amount of variety which doesnt fit in at all with your "set ways" theory.


Dont start being all gay and internety and looking for a pointless argument by dragging in a totally off topic thread that isnt even anything to do with engines, and anyway, you are wrong again, im well aware of both sides of the argument on the drugs thread as it happens.

 

Im not being gay or arguing, its just as with so many threads, your starting an argument (that YBs wouldnt work with this graph as they so much more varied, which is totally wrong, as shown) for no reason apart to I dunno, entertain yourself, look clever, try and show how right you are and how wrong you can make others look, be annoying, im not sure.
And once again, when shown wrong, you will argue till the death about it pointlessly, ruining yet another thread just to get the last word.

When in reality, none of your comments needed saying, all that needed to happen is if someone fancied doing it, they should, as it would be interesting to see, just as those graphs are.

 

Im not saying it wont work.

Im saying the BHP one would have a larger standard deviation based on the engines of people I know.

And im saying it would be interesting to see.

Fuck knows where you are getting all the other crap you THINK im saying from, cause you are wrong.


Loosely speaking im of the opinion most engines will fall relatively close to 80lbft per litre per bar of absolute pressure, as thats my experience across many different engine types, from 5 port right up to multi valve quad cam etc.

BHP will vary a lot more, torque wont.

 

you hadnt been and edited your post when I first replied, so I didnt see these bits:

If im actually shown to be wrong, all I ever do is say "oh thanks, didnt realise I was wrong", doesnt happen often though, as I dont post things in the first place if they are wrong of course as im not like that, I like things to be factual, and in the thread you mentioned, I was giving my opinion, and it was 100% factually correct to be my opinion, and was displayed as such, so fuck knows what you are twittering on about now just for the sake of it?

You made comments that the YB scene had no variety in it, I said that I could think of plenty of varied examples, I dont see why you would be of the opinion that my take on that needed saying any less than yours did?

 

It doesnt happen as you are under the impression your never wrong and will post over and over and over till someone gives up and gets bored and the threads fucked. This ones well on the way.

You tried to say that the YB tuning was way more varied than the 302s, even though you know nowt about them.

I proved you was wrong with factual infomation, making this idea as revelant to YBs as any other engine.

You carried on and on, and no doubt will more, having already properly fucked this thread.

 

oh look... Chips going on and on and on again x1000

its literally every thread... Seriously Chip, are you this boring away from the keyboard..? oops, I forgot, your never away from it LOL

 

stavros mate its fucked already

chip ,here is a little task for you,try not to reply on this thread again! lets see how you do.............

 

no chance Dovboy...!!!!

 

Thats a nonsense, on the very infrequent occasion Im wrong about something, Im quite happy to admit and learn from it, like this example here:
http://www.migweb.co.uk/forums/engin...ml#post3765555
Where someone corrected me on a typo I had made that was quite misleading, so I thanked them for correcting me, I didnt argue about it like you are implying I would.


The reality is simply that you just arent very good at reading things accurately, so often misinterpret them, and its your interpretation of what I have said that is wrong, not what I actually said.

For example I said:
Then you have just claimed:
I havent said that at all.

The closest I came was:
Ie, I commented that the people with YB's that I know, have more variation in power output than are on that graph, I only mentioned those subsets of each scene, I didnt say ANYTHING about the scene as a whole for 302s, you are making that bit up completely.




No you didnt, you proved wrong some things that I never said in the first place, but that you claimed I said, which is a VERY common theme with you, you read something Ive read, you then think it says something different, and then you argue with the something different, I point out that wasnt what I said at all, and you go round and round in circles keep making up things that you claim Ive said when I havent, and I keep correcting you.

You said all YB's follow the same route, I pointed out they dont.

I said that the YB's im familiar with, the likes of Rods, would show a larger standard deviation than on the graph.

 

 

paahahahah

Told you... How many quotes

 

Its heading that way, and its doing so as result of HIM arguing with things that NO ONE has said, but he is claiming that I have.

 

1 for each of the gay nonsense that Stavros was engaging in, all based around things he claimed that I said which I had not.

If someone misrepresents what I have said, or just blatantly tells lies about what I have said, then of course I will correct them.

 

Interesting stuff, and largely inline with what one would expect.

Are those all 2 litre engines?

If so, i really cant see that 400lbft/15psi entry as being accurate.

 

[QUOTE=Westy;3622737]paahahahah

 

Yes, they are all 2 litre engines.

I think that one is this:

http://www.sxoc.co.uk/vbb/showpost.p...&postcount=123

 

Leadfoot- Shouldve added Polos too, which is running I think 35psi and 404lbft I think, tho need a longer scale then

ROFL

 

lead foot, I cant click on the graph, it says:

 

 

Yeah true. he hadn't post his results in the S14 power figures section (where I got the info from).

 

Here is his graph:

 

Can you get hold of the boost versus BHP variation of that graph (normally you get a set of graphs from DD)

Blatantly though to me, that boost spiked, so I suspect the 400 bit is relatively accurate, but that the 16psi on your graph isnt correct, it must have spiked beyond its held figure he was expecting to 20+ surely?

 

PS

Assuming it did spike then drop to a held 16psi, the 340lbft it dropped back to would sit almost right on the line

 

I just saw it does say boost spiked on the graph, doh!!

 

Lead_foot, what is the PMCC of that graph you have posted (product moment correlation coefficient?)

 

oops, i missed that one too

so its blatantly on the wrong place in your chart.

 

Subscribing...