Notices
911 Forum 1964-1989
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: Intercity Lines, LLC

Hmmm...what is my HP?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-08-2002 | 04:11 AM
  #1  
d230's Avatar
d230
Thread Starter
Intermediate
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Post Hmmm...what is my HP?

I plan to dyno my engine just for peace of mind...but for now, can someone help me guess my HP: I have an SC engine with '74 heat exchangers and sport pipes (authentic). Bought 'em in Amsterdam last year from an old rally-meister.

Secondly, I posted earlier and heard a little later, the perils of supercharging - won't be doing that now.

But 20/21 cams sound nice and durability will be good (I hope). Overall, with a 3.0, backdated exhaust w/ sport pipes and 20/21 cams, please tell me what the proposed horsepower will be of this setup? Engine is an '83, if that helps...

TIA
Old 12-08-2002 | 08:28 PM
  #2  
marc 1xx1's Avatar
marc 1xx1
Instructor
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
From: LI, NY
Post

A stock 78-80 SC has about 180 HP. ROW 80 SC have 188. ROW '81-83 have 204. The SSI and Sport Muffler are rumoured to add about 10-15% more HP. I am not sure what the cams will do.

I have done the change to my '78. I use 200 Total.

So your engine should be 204 plus say 25 that makes 229, round up to 230.

I would be curious to hear of your actual Dyno results.

marc
Old 12-08-2002 | 10:28 PM
  #3  
CamB's Avatar
CamB
Instructor
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 118
Likes: 1
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Post

My guess - 195-200hp at the wheels.
Old 12-09-2002 | 02:55 AM
  #4  
d230's Avatar
d230
Thread Starter
Intermediate
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Post

Guys - when I mentioned Amsterdam, I meant I got the sports muffler in Amsterdam - not the engine. I have a 1983 U.S. 3.O. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Cam B, you're saying with the exhaust and cam changes, I should have 195-200 at the wheels, not the flywheel?

TIA
Old 12-09-2002 | 09:53 AM
  #5  
Roamer's Avatar
Roamer
Instructor
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 217
Likes: 1
From: Buffalo, NY
Post

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no way with an exhaust and cams on an sc are you getting 195-200 rwhp. That, roughtly converts to 240-250 flywheel hp, and that takes A LOT of mods on a 3.2 (namely that it becomes a 3.4), let alone a 3.0. I think 195-200 at the flywheel is a far more accurate estimate.
Old 12-10-2002 | 04:30 AM
  #6  
CamB's Avatar
CamB
Instructor
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 118
Likes: 1
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Post

Depends on what you think dyno losses are? I think rwhp x 1.1 or 1.15 - thus around 220hp. I posted my guess on RWHP because that is less open to debate... I've got a measured 245hp at the wheels and there is no way I have 1.25x that (over 300hp) from a 3.2.

A US SC is 188hp? I think. I'm only giving say 12hp for the exhaust and 20 for the cams. Maybe a little generous.

<a href="http://www.pelicanparts.com/techarticles/911_engine_rebuild/911_engine_rebuild2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.pelicanparts.com/techarticles/911_engine_rebuild/911_engine_rebuild2.htm</a>
Old 12-10-2002 | 05:55 AM
  #7  
k9handler's Avatar
k9handler
Intermediate
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
From: Germany
Post

ok, all the listings from the factory for the engines are not rear wheel dyno results...they are at the flywheel!

So my guess would be at best +20HP at the flywheel due to the freeflow results with the backdated exhaust...but you must consider the loss through the drivetrain.

So I would guess 190 - 195 HP at rear wheels.
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
Old 12-10-2002 | 10:38 AM
  #8  
Roamer's Avatar
Roamer
Instructor
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 217
Likes: 1
From: Buffalo, NY
Post

Wow, we are an optimistic bunch, only 10-15% driveline loss, the industry readily assumes 15-20%. Even if we assume the best, 15%, 195 rwhp is equivalent to 229 fwhp, still very optimistic given that it is a 50 hp increase over stock. Exhaust and cams MIGHT get you 30 fwhp, therefore
I will stick with my initial estimate of 195-200 fwhp.

CamB, what did you do to your engine? If we assume the 15% loss, 245 rwhp equates to 288 flwhp, and most engine builders say that this amount of hp requires new high-comp P&Cs (therefore no longer a 3.2), cams, dual plug, exhaust and maybe mass air. If you have found some magic in the motor that we don't know about, by all means please share it!! We could all use to save a few bucks!

I am not trying to be a downer here, just a realist.
Old 12-10-2002 | 12:36 PM
  #9  
aquabat911's Avatar
aquabat911
Instructor
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
From: Huntington Beach, CA
Post

well I guess we are optomistic, but yeah generaly on a car with no driveline no U-joints you generaly assume about 13-16% parasitic loss from the driveline. <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
Old 12-10-2002 | 01:06 PM
  #10  
aquabat911's Avatar
aquabat911
Instructor
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
From: Huntington Beach, CA
Post

a source for dyno comparison numbers
<a href="http://www.edmunds.com/editorial/techcenter/horsepowernetvswheeldriven/43845/" target="_blank">www.edmunds.com/editorial/techcenter/horsepowernetvswheeldriven/43845/</a>
Old 12-10-2002 | 04:06 PM
  #11  
CamB's Avatar
CamB
Instructor
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 118
Likes: 1
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Post

Sorry - I have no "cheap" secret - it isn't a Carrera engine! It is an SC case and (ported) heads, 98mm 10.5:1 pistons and cylinders, twin plug, early-S cams and throttle bodies with EFI. Exhaust is SSIs and 2 in 1 out muffler. Thanks to the EFI and high compression, I have more than 85hp/litre which is better than any of the factory S-cam cars, so I am pretty happy.

But it wasn't cheap . It had better last a long time!!!

I was using the 245rwhp to indicate what the dyno guy I used told me for the conversion factor. I realise 1.1x is pretty low (only 9% losses). I would believe anything in a range from 9% to 15% for a transaxle transmission and maybe as high as 20% for a car with a separate gearbox, propshaft and diff.

Subjectively, I have read of a number of people who are happy with the change to their SC from 964 or 20/21 cams.

Cam

[quote]Originally posted by Roamer:
<strong>CamB, what did you do to your engine? If we assume the 15% loss, 245 rwhp equates to 288 flwhp, and most engine builders say that this amount of hp requires new high-comp P&Cs (therefore no longer a 3.2), cams, dual plug, exhaust and maybe mass air. If you have found some magic in the motor that we don't know about, by all means please share it!! We could all use to save a few bucks!

I am not trying to be a downer here, just a realist.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Old 12-10-2002 | 05:14 PM
  #12  
Fahrvergnuugen's Avatar
Fahrvergnuugen
Instructor
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 141
Likes: 3
From: Galway NY
Post

I don't mean to dive in here, but I'm curious about my engine as well...
its a ported & polished 3.2 ['86] with web cams, chipped ecu and Bursch exhaust.

what would you estimate to the rear wheels?
Old 12-10-2002 | 05:41 PM
  #13  
Roamer's Avatar
Roamer
Instructor
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 217
Likes: 1
From: Buffalo, NY
Post

Cam, my hat is off to you, sounds like a great motor, but I can imagine that you have some serious bucks in there! However, I think it illustrates my point. YOu got 100 flwhp from +$10k in SIGNIFICANT mods (and I know the laws of diminishing returns) but cams and an exhaust won't get you half way there.

I would have to agree that those cams have yielded nice results.
Old 12-10-2002 | 07:19 PM
  #14  
CamB's Avatar
CamB
Instructor
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 118
Likes: 1
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Post

Yeah (on all counts!!!).

Still, I base my estimate on Noah Pollack's slightly over 200hp from a 3.0 Carrera with the same specs but slightly higher compression.

I guess it also depends how healthy the engine is to start with.



Quick Reply: Hmmm...what is my HP?



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 09:07 PM.