CVH Guru's...300hp from 1600cc...your views??
12-02-2005, 04:06 PM
#82
It Wasnt Me!
huh? i know it sais 1.9 above but was unsure why 1.9's were brought into it so i asked jus incase i had missed summit 
cc obv makes a diff i aint said otherwise. what u on about 1.6 vs 1.9? we all talkin about 1600's here no ones mentioned 1.9s till you showed up lol
maybe a 1.9 will do 300bhp, that's not the debate here tho, get ure own thread 
cc obv makes a diff i aint said otherwise. what u on about 1.6 vs 1.9? we all talkin about 1600's here no ones mentioned 1.9s till you showed up lolmaybe a 1.9 will do 300bhp, that's not the debate here tho, get ure own thread
12-02-2005, 04:33 PM
#92
It Wasnt Me!
Ok. . so apart from this guys 1600CVH and dhadley's (which i never knew went on a dyno, u talking shite again dingy? LOL) what 300bhp 1600, i repeat SIXTEEN HUNDRED CVH's have been
12-02-2005, 04:52 PM
#96
PassionFord Post Troll
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So after reading the whole post I come to the conclusion that there IS a 300bhp engine that HAS been on the dyno. Tell me more, anyone got the dyno figures or graph...genuinely interested. 
Other than that no one has done a 1/4 mile run with a terminal speed to reflect 300bhp???
Well?!?
Other than that no one has done a 1/4 mile run with a terminal speed to reflect 300bhp???Well?!?
12-02-2005, 04:54 PM
#97
10K+ Poster!!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 12,748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who honestly gives a flying fuck?
The lad was only after a few pointers to help him decide which engine to go for for fuck sake!
P.S This is not aimed at any 1 person...
The lad was only after a few pointers to help him decide which engine to go for for fuck sake!
P.S This is not aimed at any 1 person...
12-02-2005, 05:04 PM
#102
It Wasnt Me!
Originally Posted by dingy
Been on Nobles rollers - don't that count ?
IF it makes 300bhp on there then surely its more like 320 on an engine dyno
IF it makes 300bhp on there then surely its more like 320 on an engine dyno
12-02-2005, 05:22 PM
#105
As Dingy said earlier, you can get fairly close with the Maths. Mine is maxed out (when I say maxed out, I mean 95% 
) on Greens too. I have some other Injectors waiting to go in, but there is other stuff planned for then too.
With a Fuel Pressure of 'X', an Injector Duty of 'Y' and an AFR of 'Z', I think you can probably calculate the power closer than you can with a Rolling Road.
Having said that, I think its unfair to say that ALL Rolling Roads are toss. OK, so you can't compare one to another, but there are some very good RR's out there that may actually be quite accurate. Again, is it a case of splitting hairs? I think that if a car made 320bhp on a fairly decent RR, you could probably have a fairly safe bet (OK, not guaranteed) that it is actually over 300bhp.
) on Greens too. I have some other Injectors waiting to go in, but there is other stuff planned for then too.With a Fuel Pressure of 'X', an Injector Duty of 'Y' and an AFR of 'Z', I think you can probably calculate the power closer than you can with a Rolling Road.
Having said that, I think its unfair to say that ALL Rolling Roads are toss. OK, so you can't compare one to another, but there are some very good RR's out there that may actually be quite accurate. Again, is it a case of splitting hairs? I think that if a car made 320bhp on a fairly decent RR, you could probably have a fairly safe bet (OK, not guaranteed) that it is actually over 300bhp.
12-02-2005, 05:28 PM
#106
PassionFord Post Troll
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the greatest respect.....lets talk terminal speeds. All this prediction crap is rubbish. Just because an engine is using x-amount of fuel, at X amount of fuel pressure at whatever inj duty... it doesnt mean that it is X amount of power. Argue this as much as you like.....terminal speeds now I am sure EVERYONE knows that this is a far accurate means of horse power. So back onto termianl speeds as this is the only other way apart from dyno that true power can be claimed.
12-02-2005, 05:29 PM
#107
It Wasnt Me!
could also be that a car with X injectors is overfuelling or under fuelling, so then how can maths be so accurate? you cant calculate an engines power with all these tollerances, the engine may not be PERFECT , you can calculate what it SHOULD be or as close too. . 
12-02-2005, 05:38 PM
#108
Originally Posted by vroooom ptssssh
could also be that a car with X injectors is overfuelling or under fuelling, so then how can maths be so accurate? you cant calculate an engines power with all these tollerances, the engine may not be PERFECT , you can calculate what it SHOULD be or as close too. .
Comprendez?
As for Terminals, now there's something that has MANY variables. Gearing, Weight, Conditions etc etc. So how can that give an indication any more accurate than any other method?
12-02-2005, 05:43 PM
#109
It Wasnt Me!
how u getting ure A I R F U E L R A T I O C H R I S T I A N ? . (sorry had a spelling fetish there ) From a guage? anyway that was a joke before you come back with some more cheekyness. .
no its not accurate, may be close, but its not accurate, therefore worthless
) From a guage? anyway that was a joke before you come back with some more cheekyness. . no its not accurate, may be close, but its not accurate, therefore worthless
12-02-2005, 05:46 PM
#110
PassionFord Post Troll
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christian for starters I think your theory regarding accurate hp calculation in comparison to 1/4 mile terminals is incorrect anyway....out of interest, whats the fastest 1/4 terminal speed you've recorded? and do you have a SCA or APT rolling road graph with your engines output?
There is a formula you can use to calculate HP from 1/4 terminal speed and the cars weight etc, god knows where it is when you need it. I am sure Stu posted it here a while back. I used it and compared it to my old dyno figures and it was pretty accurate so theres the proof.
There is a formula you can use to calculate HP from 1/4 terminal speed and the cars weight etc, god knows where it is when you need it. I am sure Stu posted it here a while back. I used it and compared it to my old dyno figures and it was pretty accurate so theres the proof.
12-02-2005, 06:15 PM
#112
PassionFord Post Troll
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No mate as we are not measuring 1/4 ET. You could have a crap launch and still cross the line at a similar speed as a good launch.
Anyway...off out to enjoy the festivities of Saturday night!
Anyway...off out to enjoy the festivities of Saturday night!
12-02-2005, 06:29 PM
#114
15K+ Super Poster!!
All this prediction crap is rubbish. Just because an engine is using x-amount of fuel, at X amount of fuel pressure at whatever inj duty... it doesnt mean that it is X amount of power. Argue this as much as you like.....terminal speeds now I am sure EVERYONE knows that this is a far accurate means of horse power. So back onto termianl speeds as this is the only other way apart from dyno that true power can be claimed.
I couldnt disagree more with this comment. I think terminal speeds are massively innacurate. I do agree they give a good indication though. The air consumed is a far more accurate measure of horse power. It's very obvious to anyone with a good understranding of fluid dynamics, or engines in general that a 1600cc can produce far more than 300hp.
12-02-2005, 06:40 PM
#115
PassionFord Post Troll
Thread Starter
what have i started
but it would be interesting to see what the limits of a 1600cvh are...for example...2-3 years back...if someone said i can get 600hp out of a Zetec i would have honestly thought...ok mate...if you say so but it has been done and proven with a few engines
bassboy
but it would be interesting to see what the limits of a 1600cvh are...for example...2-3 years back...if someone said i can get 600hp out of a Zetec i would have honestly thought...ok mate...if you say so
but it has been done and proven with a few engines bassboy
13-02-2005, 12:07 AM
#118
just finding my feet
sorry but terminals are well more in acurate than a afr/injector flow, presure ect
as its not gonna be consistant at all
, if theres not the same terminal speed ect then how car iont be more acurater than a acruately set fuel map
example i can give is oranoco is a fooking good driver, hes got 149.9 on a stage 2 turbo 1600 bottom end, 5ht injector and tbh its not a special engine build just a general engine rebuild and a few toys, he dotn even have a .48 housing let alone a .63, now others with more powerfull cars have got less speeds for some reason , surely thats then indicating theres the driver aspect to take into consideration too
btw that was at brunters too before the non proof boys start
oh and Tims car did over 300bhp on pts's rollers but it was climbing up the front roller on all the runs even with matt , tiff , 1 member of pts and even tim standing on the front panel ( no room to sit with matt and tiff sitting there ), so fook knows what bhp it really was but its deffo got alot of torque 
think back on to the point for bass boy, what ya need before all of that is a decent cam ( the cvh35 wont rev high enough for 300bhp) and a very well sorted head as thats the skilled part that needs to me looked at and checked proper ( wonder if ya flow test em to see if they can flow the air to get the bhp acurate or do yab slap it on and see the terminals it makes then take back off again and reflow em 
)
oh and 1 final note, think that a zetec is a cheeper option than a al steel bottom end cvh engine imo as ya dont need to flow the head for 300bhp on a zetec
as its not gonna be consistant at all
, if theres not the same terminal speed ect then how car iont be more acurater than a acruately set fuel map example i can give is oranoco is a fooking good driver, hes got 149.9 on a stage 2 turbo 1600 bottom end, 5ht injector and tbh its not a special engine build just a general engine rebuild and a few toys, he dotn even have a .48 housing let alone a .63, now others with more powerfull cars have got less speeds for some reason
, surely thats then indicating theres the driver aspect to take into consideration too btw that was at brunters too before the non proof boys start
oh and Tims car did over 300bhp on pts's rollers but it was climbing up the front roller on all the runs even with matt
, tiff , 1 member of pts and even tim standing on the front panel ( no room to sit with matt and tiff sitting there ), so fook knows what bhp it really was but its deffo got alot of torque think back on to the point for bass boy, what ya need before all of that is a decent cam ( the cvh35 wont rev high enough for 300bhp) and a very well sorted head as thats the skilled part that needs to me looked at and checked proper ( wonder if ya flow test em to see if they can flow the air to get the bhp acurate or do yab slap it on and see the terminals it makes then take back off again and reflow em
)oh and 1 final note, think that a zetec is a cheeper option than a al steel bottom end cvh engine imo as ya dont need to flow the head for 300bhp on a zetec
13-02-2005, 02:01 AM
#119
PassionFord Post Troll
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just got in....knackered so excuse any spellling mistakes.
I couldnt disagree more with this comment. I think terminal speeds are massively innacurate. I do agree they give a good indication though. The air consumed is a far more accurate measure of horse power. It's very obvious to anyone with a good understranding of fluid dynamics, or engines in general that a 1600cc can produce far more than 300hp.
Rick, agreed that air flow IS horsepower however in these cases when we have flow figures from a flow bench they can only tell us what what the cylinder head is capable of flowing. There are far too many items in the spec to determine whether X amount of air flow equates to X amount of horsepower. When comparing cylinder head flow rates then YES spot on you can see which cylinder head has the most hp potential.
Karl - thanks mate. So conclusion so far is that out of the CVH boys Oli has proven to be the closest to 300bhp. Oh and the other chap who's dyno'ed his 300bhp+ CVH turbo. Someone get the dyno graph and Oli's timing slip and post em up as I done a 10 sec @ 155mph last week...jus kidding. My sense of humour aint the best at 3am. I'll get my coat. 
Jeez I am fooked...need to get some zzz's.
Originally Posted by Rick
All this prediction crap is rubbish. Just because an engine is using x-amount of fuel, at X amount of fuel pressure at whatever inj duty... it doesnt mean that it is X amount of power. Argue this as much as you like.....terminal speeds now I am sure EVERYONE knows that this is a far accurate means of horse power. So back onto termianl speeds as this is the only other way apart from dyno that true power can be claimed.
I couldnt disagree more with this comment. I think terminal speeds are massively innacurate. I do agree they give a good indication though. The air consumed is a far more accurate measure of horse power. It's very obvious to anyone with a good understranding of fluid dynamics, or engines in general that a 1600cc can produce far more than 300hp.
Karl - thanks mate. So conclusion so far is that out of the CVH boys Oli has proven to be the closest to 300bhp. Oh and the other chap who's dyno'ed his 300bhp+ CVH turbo.
Someone get the dyno graph and Oli's timing slip and post em up as I done a 10 sec @ 155mph last week...jus kidding. My sense of humour aint the best at 3am. I'll get my coat. Jeez I am fooked...need to get some zzz's.
