Let's play, "Predict the HP Game" (take 2) ---- this time with a 3.6L ;-) - Page 3

Tinker · 12-09-2005, 04:53 PM

291.5

Tinker

Bryan Beaumont · 12-09-2005, 05:36 PM

When is DYNO Day???

TonyG · 12-09-2005, 05:51 PM

1tonturbo
>>>When is DYNO Day???<<<

Most likely next week.

I have to pull the engine/transmission Monday due to a problem with the transmission the cropped up yesterday. I should have it fixed and back in the car by the end of the week.

Plus, I wanted to have some mileage on the engine before I got it on the dyno.

Once that's done, I'll be on the way to the dyno.

TonyG

Bryan Beaumont · 12-09-2005, 06:17 PM

So you are putting a few miles on it prior to the dyno. Gotta ask... How does it feel. What is your guess on RWHP? Just for fun.

Bryan

snowman · 09:54 PM

Whats the airflow thru the heads, the specs for the cam, ie lobe centers, duration, compression ratio, valve sizes and we can get a reasonable estimate. Airflow thru the heads and compression ration are the most important variables. Carbs or injection, air flow thru the intake system.

Actually if you know the overall airflow the hp can be gustimated by dividing the af by 4 and multiplying it by the number of cylinders. Then take 25 percent for loss in the drive train and you have the actual hp, plus or minus about 5 percent. That of course is a maximum.

Think about it folks. IT ain't rocket science. We all know that the max power is with an af ratio of about 12:1. Therefore if we know the airflow. we know the exact power, if we keep the af mixture where it should be.

TonyG · 07:50 AM

snowman

The engine is a stock 964 engine with stock heads that have had larger valves installed (the same sizes as the late 993 approx).

The cams are 964 cams with the 993 sport grind by Web Cam.

The carbs are 50mm PMO with 41mm chokes.

The headers are Partrick Motorsport 1.75" race headers going into a M&K 2 in 2 out muffler.

Electromotive crank fire ignition.

There's the spec.

Tender your guess.

TonyG

Brother · 12-10-2005, 07:45 AM

330

jacko241 · 12-10-2005, 05:01 PM

Sounds about like 282.

snowman · 12-10-2005, 05:11 PM

Official guess 242

Bryan Beaumont · 12-10-2005, 05:41 PM

TonyG,
What's your guess?

Rob Channell · 12-10-2005, 06:14 PM

289hp

TonyG · 12-10-2005, 08:25 PM

1tonturbo

>>>TonyG,
What's your guess?<<<

I know nothing more than you all know with the exception that I've driven the car. Yes that's a big advantage, but then again I'm not participating in the contest.

The idea here is to stir up the bench racing scene on the Pelican board.

Honestly, I really have no idea about the power to the ground as I'm used to running heavier cars. Thus this car I'm sure feels like it's putting out more power, to me, than it probably is.

Only the dyno will tell for sure...

TonyG

snowman · 08:40 PM

Lets see here, 240hp, REAL hp to the rear wheels will push my M635 to 180mph plus, Same size engine, but 4valve plus motronic,plus really really nice factory headers, plus 10.5:1 compression, plus water cooling, 270 something degree factory cams. Thats not shabby, thats MORE than a Mustang SVO v8 or most any GM V8, even the hopped up ones. Dosen't sound like much but it is, much more than a typical anything you will find on the street. Thats about 330 at the flywheel by the way.

TonyG · 08:56 PM

>>>Lets see here, 240hp, REAL hp to the rear wheels will push my M635 to 180mph plus, Same size engine, but 4valve plus motronic,plus really really nice factory headers, plus 10.5:1 compression, plus water cooling, 270 something degree factory cams. Thats not shabby, thats MORE than a Mustang SVO v8 or most any GM V8, even the hopped up ones. Dosen't sound like much but it is, much more than a typical anything you will find on the street.<<<

240 REAL hp to the wheels is well... 240RWHP.

I don't know about where you live, but 240RWHP here on Southern California is not much. 350HP to the wheels will barely raise an eyebrow.

We've got 996TT's , 993TT's, 944 Turbos, 930's, Z06's, Vipers, and more.... that in the normal course of business put out MUCH MUCH more than 240 REAL rear wheel hp, all day long.

We're getting ready to put in an all aluminum 550HP N/A (to the crank) LS1 V8 into a 944 turbo. Wanna go for a ride? :-)

TonyG

snowman · 08:54 PM

Point is most of the 290 plus postings are very wishful thinking. I am getting 145rwhp out of a 1725 cc Porsche engine, but you can't really drive it on the street, or without 110 octane race gas. Lets see that makes 290 highly unlikely for any street car on pump gas.

TonyG · 12-10-2005, 09:01 PM

snowman

>>>Point is most of the 290 plus postings are very wishful thinking. I am getting 145rwhp out of a 1725 cc Porsche engine, but you can't really drive it on the street, or without 110 octane race gas. Lets see that makes 290 highly unlikely for any street car on pump gas.<<<

I made no posting.

The DynoJet will tell the story good or bad.

People are free to tender their guess. Close, or far off in the clouds as it may be.

We'll see real soon what a healthy 3.6L engine will make on the rollers... on 91 octane pump gas.

I can tell you this.. the car feels REAL fast. I am very surprised at how well it runs.

So tender your guess....

TonyG

snowman · 12-10-2005, 09:09 PM

Well mine only dynos at 240 but it has passed EVERY Porsche on a race track that didn't have flame throwing supposid 600hp plus turbos that definately didn't run on pump gas. Thats like at Michigan International, and speeds over 140mph, more like in the 160mph range.

beepbeep · 12-11-2005, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by snowman
Point is most of the 290 plus postings are very wishful thinking. I am getting 145rwhp out of a 1725 cc Porsche engine, but you can't really drive it on the street, or without 110 octane race gas. Lets see that makes 290 highly unlikely for any street car on pump gas.

Yeah, but you are forgeting that most DynoJet's are fudged to make customers happy and that whole "SAE"-corrected mumbo-jumbo also skews the numbers.

My bet has nothing to do with actual crank output but with number owner is likely to get on a piece of paper he's going to display to us.

Frankly, all SAE-corrected thing is quite meaningless. Only thing that matters is wheel torque. Estimations of what engine might deliver if gearbox losses where only x%, air humidity was 70%, temperature was 21 deg. C and full moon was shining + fudge factor to make customers happier has little to do with what you get when you nail it on a freeway.

I use accellerometers when tuning engine. Accelleration vs. engine speed is directly proportional to torque. More torque means more power. I just do run after run, comparing torque figures. When curves are maximized the engine is well-tuned. Then you can take it to a dyno and print out happy pappers...

TonyG · 12-11-2005, 07:10 AM

beepbeep (and others)

Actually, the SAE correction factor is an excellent way to normalize results from place to place for comparision purposes (which is exactly what it was designed to do).

Even on an engine dyno, how could you compare the power output of an engine dynoed in Los Angeles California with a similar engine dynoed in Denver Colorado?

You couldn't. The differences in barometric conditions would never allow an accurate comparision..... unless you use a correction factor.

An excellent example would be my previous 944 turbo. Here in Los Angeles California on a DynoJet the car put down 400RWHP at 17psi boost, and 415RWHP at 18psi boost. I sold the car to a person in Toronto Canada. He then ran the car on a DynoJet there, and the difference was only 1 RWHP using the SAE correction factor.

The whole issue here is the ability to "compare".

TonyG

chancecasey · 12:14 PM

264.959 (RWHP)