Jake, question for you ...

Alfred1 · 10-25-2004, 06:52 PM

In this thread I wrote:

"Jake, I'd love to see a comparison of dyno graphs from a freshly rebuilt, stock 2.0 and then a dyno graph of the same engine but with your cam that bumps the hp up by 15. Your motor would almost certainly lose bottom end torque and hp."

to which you replied

"My design does NOT lose any HP over any portion of the spectrum! I will have over 60 new plots of engines on my site in the next few weeks, then you can compare all you want."

Now, when I compare the dyno graphs of your "Stock Replacement motor" (top graph) with the graph from your "Stock 'Update' motor" which has your cam and increased compression ratio (bottom graph), your own graphs show that the stock motor makes more hp and torque than your updated motor all the way up to 5000 rpm just like I predicted. What happened?

peridotian · peridotian's Garage

oooh, jake baiting. Are we bored or just finished beating the wife?

Acox914 · 10-25-2004, 08:00 PM

Alfred, with all due respect, unless you can build motors with these numbers, and sell 100's of them, and have customers that are happy, i would let this subject die. Please dont bring up these pissing contests again.

Alfred1 · 10-25-2004, 08:09 PM

C'mon! He made some very definite statements right here on this board and told me to "compare all I want". That's all I'm doing.

Acox914 · 10-25-2004, 09:56 PM

whats this personal obsession with jake???

alfred, please. we are not stupid

lapuwali · 10-25-2004, 10:50 PM

You have to admit, he has a point. I've heard Jake make such statements regularly, and his own data aren't backing them up. Personal vendetta or no, it looks like Jake either posted the wrong graphs (certainly possible and understandable given the sheer amount of data involved), or his cam/compression updates don't help except at the very top end.

Alfred1 · 10-25-2004, 10:52 PM

If I'm trying to learn something new like what changes in various engine specs have on the hp and torque output of a motor, then I want to learn from accurate information and not be BS'd into confusion.

cnavarro · 04:07 AM

I possibly posted the wrong graphs on Jake's site (i'll look into that), but I must point out that the top graph is the stock replacement motor, NOT A STOCK MOTOR! The bottom graph is a further revision of the STOCK REPLACEMENT MOTOR.

Charles Navarro
LN Engineering
http://www.LNengineering.com
Aircooled Precision Performance

Jake Raby · 10-26-2004, 06:23 AM

Here is a simple answer for you Alfred....

The updated engine that is plotted there is designed to WORK AT SEA LEVEL much better than stock! The engine was not dyno tuned at SEA LEVEL! My site is not finished yet, and thats why so few of the graphs are even up there. All the data is not posted yet for each engine that is there! It is still being worked on!

Before you make such assumption, wait till I finish the site and make the post to welcome people to browse around and look at things. Charles and I have worked on that site for 5 months and its really a drain on both of us.

BTW, That "Stock" engine still is not 100% stock, just as the description reflects. It is built my way and blueprinted with a slight cam change that was considered stock in only the 1973 Automatic 412 Sedan.

So Alfred, since I am such an idiot and know nothing about these engines would you mind explaining what your sorry ass was doing on my site in the first place???

Here is a quote
If I'm trying to learn something new like what changes in various engine specs have on the hp and torque output of a motor, then I want to learn from accurate information and not be BS'd into confusion.

The first rule of learning from those graphs would be to know every single spec that they all contain and what partsare used- You never will because that information will not be posted. If any of the data on my site is going to teach Alfred a damn thing I will remove it before he has a chance to benefit from it!

I havestated many times over that my updated versions of the stock engine are made to increase the drivability of the stock engine, if you can't look at those two graphs and see which one would be a better driver something is wrong. Look at the big dip that the torque takes at 2500 RPM and look how it absolutely falls on its face right before 5K. Look how smooth the power transition is with the updated engine and how it pulls all the way to 5500 RPM...

FYI, one of these "Updated" engines was built and shipped to a customer in California. Since the engine was designed to be used at sea level I but my dyno is at 1300' I gave the customer a discount to give me some chassis dyno information from it installed in his car....

In the climate that it was designed for that engine made 3HP more and 5 lb/ft more torque than it did on my dyno including the losses through the drivetrain!

Moral of the story for Alfred:
Only compare things after you have the full story with all the specs, else shut the hell up and go climb back in a hole with your book that probably has all the pages stuck together at this point!

Alfred, add my site to the list of sites you have been banned from- there is no use for you to be there because I damn sure won't sell you anything and if I can help it you won't learn anything there either!

Dave at Pelican Parts · Dave at Pelican Parts's Garage

Jeez, you guys just can't play nice together, can you?

I'm locking this one, before it gets way out of hand.

--DD