rolling roads

[mk1gaz]

lol, but i'm right though .

[rwdrs]

lol, but i'm right though .

Well at least you think you're right that's half the battle

[mk1gaz]

But a turbo does add extra air to an engine , it does up the power and torque of an engine and it does make an engine excede the 95ibls/ft a litre rule . Hence torque isn't capacity related it's "intake air volume" related . I could be wrong but i doubt it .

[rwdrs]

But a turbo does add extra air to an engine , it does up the power and torque of an engine and it does make an engine excede the 95ibls/ft a litre rule . Hence torque isn't capacity related it's "intake air volume" related . I could be wrong but i doubt it .

how many more times??????

The increase in air volume is achieved in n/a engines by increasing the capacity.
The reason a turbo does increase "effective" capacity/swept volume as a n/a engine uses atmospheric pressure and can only "draw" in so much air

[richy c]

are you sure?

[gary@retro]

So what is it with these Duratec figures - if believed, are they they only N/A rengines capable of betaing 90 ftlbs per litre (despite the best efforts of AMG and M power who can't match that) .

Check out the web-site I posed above - nothing beat 90 ftlbs.

All the old supertourer (BTCC)spec engines hit around 99-100 ft/lb .. the nissan 2l's the Swindon reverse head XE , and at the time they where the best money could buy, the power was capped to around 300bhp by the rev limit imposed by the rules.
The way these engines achieve that figure is the excellent head designs that where made back then, and we are seeing on modern engines.
If you think back to the early days .. people where cheering about a an engine making 50hp .. they even put it in the cars name they where that proud, now you have 2000cc engines making 170 and above with 12k service intervals and a life of 150k+ .. imagine an old pinto rated at 170 horse and lasting for 150k

And Gaz.. why are we talking about Turbos on here .. this started out about N/A engines, go start another thread about Turbos ..

Getting back on track to find the
" AVERAGES OF NA ENGINES AND DYNOS"

NAME...............ENGINE.................... CC ........................ FT/LB / LITRE

Darren .............HT pinto ...................2.2 ......................... 78.18
Darren's mate ..HT pinto ...................2.1.......................... 75.2
Mk1Gaz........... NA Cossie YB .............2.0........................... 85.5
SBD ............... Duratec.....................2.0................... ....... 97
AndyPipe.......... HT X-flow.................1.6 .......................... 73.3
Cossimatt ........ SBD YB. N/A ............. 2.0.......................... 74.85
Pushrod............X-flow...................... 1.7 ......................... 82.9
TimGR...............X-flow.......................1.8.................... .......77
Marks rs2000....Ron Harris ...................2.2 .......................... 78.2
Mates mk2 .......ht 2.3 n/a cossy..........2.3............................ 78.2
another.......... ht pinto...................... 2.2........................... 76.8
Dave @ retro ford.. duratec........ ....... 2.05..........................97.07
icky................duratec ......................2.3. .........................95.6


Allready just glancing at it you can draw some conclusions

the old 8 valves .. around 75 ft/lb
the old 16valves .. around 80 ish
the new 16 valves ..around 95 ish

Pushrods rollers seems to be out .. and this is born out in the fact that AndyPipe went past him with ease at Snetterton.

Most of the types of engines seem to be around =/- 2 ft/lb per litre for each type whish is beliveable ..

when we get some more figures i'll split the chart into engine types

old 8 valve
old 16 valve
new 16 valve
and do an average for each group

But where are all the 2000cc pintos .. are they all 2.1's and 2.2's ?

[mk1gaz]

I don't want to talk about turbos mate , i was just trying to expain to the bloke that they don't count when refereing to the 95ibls/feet a litre rule cos they up the torque per litre by a huge margain .
Besides an engine is an engine so they're all as good as each other within reason . With an unlimited budget all engines from all makes will go as fast as each other . Hence F1 cars , Rally cars , saloon cars etc etc at the top end of motorsport using the same class of engine (2 litre N.A. , 2 litre turbo , etc etc ) will only be seperated by tiny margains which is usually only better chassis mods .

[RS2kSX]

Dropped mine off today to be set up, carbs spitting back and over fueling...

told may be 2 - 3 days

not sure what power to expect but fun to drive

[richy c]

well dont post up what you get on here

[graham John]

not sure what power to expect but fun to drive

be sure to let us know the torque figure


cheeRS

[gary@retro]

Come on, there must be a few more engines that have been on the dynos up and down the country ..

[richy c]

think you've scared them all off

[gary@retro]

think you've scared them all off

Theres nothing scary about it .. its just good to know a set of figures thats around the ball park ..
It dosnt matter what the numbers are if you've built an engine yourself, i couldnt do it, so if you get close to the average for your type of engine, pat yourself on the back. And if you have a pro-built engine then the numbers should be right .. if you have an engine built and he puts it on his dyno and it makes a gizzlian ft/lb then you know you've been 'quoted happy' and maybe its covering something up .. it may not be ..so you stick it on another set of rollers and the 8 valve pinto makes around 75ft/lb per lire .. you then know your engines good and you've had value for money

A case example .. Sanspeeds old rollers used to read about 12% over the 5 dynos in Roush, Arrons dyno at HT's and T&R's rollers (they all read within 1% of each other)
Now some people sorta got worried that their engine wasnt as good as they thought .. but the truth is they are, A good RACE 2000cc Pinto built by a pro builder will make just under 200bhp and have around 75ft/lb of torque on those dynos mentioned above ... less at Chris's and more on the Old Sanspeed rollers .. Now it dosnt mean diddly if makes a few bhp less at Chris's place, what matters is that you realise they are just numbers, and the idea behind Dynos isnt to get a Number, but to get the best from the engine .. Now some dynos/rollers operators will just tune for max bhp, they will lose a few ft/lb to give you a high BHP figure, but a good dyno operator will give up a few BHP to give you the best spread of torque.
On the road you want torque, it makes for a faster car, a big flat torque curve will always out perform a peaky high bhp scream the tits of it engine on the street.

The MOST important thing about using rolling road is you go in with one figure and come up with better figures.

Down at T&R one day when they were tuning a rallycar, they run it up first off and got the start graph .. then tuned it, the final bhp figure was about the same, and the owner was a little miffed, they told him to take it up the road and see what he thought, hmmm he wasnt sure ..
A few weeks later at the cars next rally and he was on the phone thanking them, cars that he ran behind where now behind him.
The BHP may not have gone up, but the torque curve on the graph was very different, started earlier and held all the way through, making the car a lot more forgiving ..

So the moral of the story is its not how high it is ..its how big it is !!!



Engine 'A' is the better engine, even with 10bhp less, the torque curve will make the car quicker.

[gary@retro]

Has anyone got any before and after graphs they can post up ?

Be good to see some that have had crap torque and then good torque curves and the owners comments

[grum]

heres one