Anyone know of an (off nitrous) figure higher than the 666lbft that he made today?

 

Wasnt Ima's DIY engine 700bhp with 700 lb/ft

 

666......devil sign.....wicked

 

Torque of the devil!

*ba dum tisssssshhhh*

 

lol, obviously not.this actually made it

 

Got to be up at the top deffo!

Its just the way the engine makes the power and torque, properly awesome. Going to be a right ol handful to drive! A Mazin!

 

BTW Chip i take it them figures where on race fuel? Did it do any runs on pump gas?

 

what do j g's motors run torque wise?

i cant think of any up there tbh

 

109 RON that was mate.

Here's the pump graph, from last time, on the slightly smaller turbo, Id guess its probably about 20bhp more now on pump, but we didnt try it.

 

what was the final bhp figure today?

 

838.4 bhp corrected
831.6 bhp before correction

 

j g claims 830bhp, 600lbft, i can find a graph though....

 

Didn't Jenspeed claim 720ftlb?
Awesome result from M.A.D.
Congratulations Rod

 

 

Im not convinced the scandy bhp and lbft readings are the same as uk ones, every engine julian sends over there seems to gain about 100bhp on the ferry

 

It must be something about transit over large bodies of water. Every engine shipped form US&A over here seems to have lost 20% in transit

 

Agreed

 

it looks like 626 on this video chip but not sure,take a look....
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R3aKb92UCZo

 

That pump fuel map was before we changed the inlet manifold and this picked up 47hp.

Mark

 

I was only 2 miles away from this Dyno today and I felt the earth move...LOL

 

Well done Mark, finally there.......big time.

What would 838 bhp & 666 lbft be reduced to running on 97octane for the supermarket run?


I still have a reduced concept for what these figures mean in a car but i'm sure Rod is just nuts....

 

Over 600lbft and 750bhp ish, as per the graph above.

 

Very nice results, i was reading my quartly mag from MLR earlier, and couldn't believe Si Norris' Evo, didn't his make 930 ft/lbs on that dyno? That Crazy torque.

Gaining 300bhp in 500rpm must be interesting in a RWD

Was the torque capped at all, or is that just how the graph is plotted?

Well done

 

Torque wasnt capped, other than via a 2.8 bar boost limit (bear in mind the graph on this thread isnt the one the thread was started about)

 

Just seen the graph on the other thread.

Awesome!

Can you confirm the valves are standard sized? Any idea what CFM the head flows, or is that asking too much
:thumpsup:

 

I dont know in the first place im afraid mate, thats down to mark to decide if he wants to quote cfm or not.

imho its a relatively meaningless figure tbh without knowing the cam specs too

 

So the 47hp increase for the inlet manifold added onto the 750 shown on the old graph would be around 800 bhp..........nice, or have I got that wrong?

Does 40hp sound about right between 99 and 109 fuel?

 

Yes valves are standard size & ports smaller than they could be to keep the drivability. Im not sure what this engine could make with a wilder ex cam & bigger head but I heard 920bhp mentioned but with a loss of all the good bits on that graph low down, IM MEGA HAPPY WITH THIS ENGINE

 

very impressive.

 

Mark said that it was likely to have made 770/780 on pump but its of little interest as 750 is more than enough on the road & ive always got the Nitrous button if I meet a more obstinate challenger .

 

Rod: am I correct that it's also quite quick low down from 3000 rpm? The graph is shocking. Must be quite a handful...

 

I can imagine if you told 99% of this nation your power they would automatically think 'Bullshit'. That power from a Sierra is mental.

Benni.

 

My dad is only 6 years older than you Rod, he's a Cosworth nut and enjoyed 150mph topspeed runs on early Sunday mornings exactly 20 years ago when he first bought his Saph', he's been very content with 300hp for the last 10 years, you are nuts mate.........

The thought of using a GT42 (or bigger) a couple of years ago for a "road" engine was hilarious and not to be taken seriously, to pull it off is amazing.
750 on pump fuel with a torque curve like that is just ridiculous.......rock on

For what you and Mark have both achieved, I think is fantastic, well done.




Chip, is measuring the combined area under both power and torque curves a fairer way to compare all types of engines?

 

I was more interested to know the difference between intake and exhaust, as there not very well matched as standard.

 

You only really need to use bhp, as it is calculated from the torque anyway, basically the more area under the graph the better

On rods engine for example. You could stay above 600 ft/lbs through the gears in rod's engine, but it'd be faster to change later than that, where you might managed to keep above 800bhp

 

Depends what you are comparing them for, IMHO on a road engine though, area under the curve is the most important thing yes.

 

Very nice figures!

Did you do a run on gas as well?

 

No nitrous system was plumbed in on the dyno mate, the plan is to use that in the car on the rollers.
It would have turned the dyno session into a 2 day affair to try and use the nitrous there too realistically.

 

Are you installing and setting the NOS up Chip?

Benni.

 

id assume hes the best man for the job in the mad camp ,

beef