[jluetjen]

It's not that I "don't like" your numbers. I don't harbor any preferences for one piece of data over another. It's just when you have a large set of data which has a lot of consistency, and then you are presented with a new piece of data which is inconsistent the rest, the analytic in me asks "Why?". Why is the exception different from the rest? Is there something fundamentally different about it? Was it measured accurately?

When it comes to HP claims, I'm a skeptic if the claim doesn't fit within the known data. This is merely because 911 motors (and motors in general) are known commodities. 911 motors have been around for over 40 years. I've got a data set of over 50 different 911 configurations -- some factory spec and some not. In general the data hangs together real well, not matter if I'm talking TE's or RSR's. I've also got the overall numbers compared to a set of over 200 different race and performance engines. There's some overlap between the two sets of data in regards to the Porsche race engines and in general the two sets of data agree with each other in regards to valve flow capacity and BMEP's.

I'm not picking on you, it's just that you periodically pop up with these claims about how to make big HP based on your engine, and I just can't help to point out that your numbers lay way outside that entire set of data. My point is that there appears to be something different about your numbers. I don't know if it's a measurement methodology, secret fuel, special porting or just plain BS. To be honest, I'd rather not even venture a guess. Being intellectually curious though, I would be interested in understanding it.

Incidentally, when I plugged your data into my spreadsheet, this is what I found...
- Your peak HP RPM is about where I would expect it for an 2.4 engine with E cams.
- Your peak torque RPM is a little higher then what I would have expected given a 2.4 with 32 mm intake ports, but within normal variation.
- Your peak torque of 152 lb-ft off of the chart results in a BMEP of 158 psi (essentially the torque divided into the engine size so that engines of different capacity can be compared). So straight off the dyno the number are nuts-on with other 2.4s with E cams. If I apply the 15% drag factor for the transmission (152/.85) I come up with a peak torque number of 178.8 lb-ft. This bumps the BMEP up to 185 PSI which at least 5 PSI higher then every other E-cammed engine that I've seen, and about 18% higher then all of the other 2.4s' with E cams. That's curious...
- When I look at your peak HP BMEP on the other hand, the 202 HP number results in a BMEP of 180 PSI, as opposed to the other 2.4's with E cams which are consistently putting out 148 PSI. That's a big difference -- almost 22% more torque from your engine at peak RPMS! To put it differently, this would suggest that you're getting 22% more mixture into your cylinders at peak RPM, using the same port size, cams and valve size as other 2.4's.

The funny thing is that if I were to exclude the 15% transmission correction factor, your numbers would be nuts-on with the other engines. This would lead me to hypothesize that the the transmission losses are being double-counted. I believe that many dynos can explicitly measure transmission losses, and then calculate them into the numbers. Just looking at the numbers I would suspect that this was happening on the dyno used for your engine, and then you're making the correction a second time which results in the numbers being inflated.

As far as the port flow numbers, I listed my questions about those numbers earlier.