Beating a dead horse - 4.5 liter power
05-27-2005, 05:24 PM
#31
Rennlist Member
Ive inserted some comments below with the >>>>>>>
Originally Posted by John V
Mark,
First let me say that I'm not an expert and, I appreciate all the info you've posted. Your one of the motivators that pushes us OB for better and thats a good thing. Unfortunatly, some of what you profess has been difficult to quatify by others, especially in the 4.5 L world. I've followed most of it and to be honest I'm left with "doubts". I don't "doubt" your numbers, just the percentages of impact you have attributed to certain mods.
>>>>>>>>>>>Thanks, im glad folks are learning new ways to make HP and there are a bunch of them . I certainly dont have the answers and have only done the emperical tests that all have seen the results from. No doubt that ive gone from 175hp stock to 293hp at the wheels with the mods listed in very small increments.
I think most folks understand that many factors effect flow including pressure, area, bends and surface irregularities. However, other than pressure, all else being equal, area is likely the next principle contributer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I have the problem with the "all things being equal," as with the runners , TB and plennum things in this area are changed dramatically as far as flow.
Where I think your numbers and others expectations have gone astray is in evaluating the valves impact in the equation. In using the valves diameter (43 or 45 mm) x 2, you are not taking into account that this aperture , (unlike any other in the equation) is not fully open for flow 1) because of differences in cam lift and 2) becuase of cam duration and 3) because the valve itself obstructs laminar flow through it (unlike a throttle plate). In deed those 3 factors are more limiting to a large degree than any other single factor, including the AFM. I think that is a critical key that reconciles yours and others experiences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>your point only strengthens mine. with the valve obstructions and cam, lift, etc, the valves become even MORE of the restriction, but for some reason, changes on the intake seems to always help. on Vets in speedGT World Challenge, its amazing what they can do with valve changes and not intake, where others get intake changes and not valve changes like with the BMWs. both seem to work in varying degrees.
again, with all that restriction at the valve, ive got 43hp with only cams and intake changes. not all of that was cams, and even if it was 30hp, 13 of it would come from the intake. i hardly think a 82 euro cam is 30hp in itself, but if it is, 13hp for the intake is still substantial.
In your scenerio, the USA valves are less restrictive than the AFM and the runners while the Euro S valves are even less restrictive than both the USA TB and AFM. Forgive me for saying so but I think that is incorrect. I'd venture to say that even Euro S valves are far more of a restriction than anything in the USA intake system including the AFM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>why would you say this? becuase of the lift, duration and flow disruption of the valve itself??? Ok, i can buy a lot of that.
However, i would also ventur to say that just valve size alone doesnt buy you the increase either. in fact, the heads on a euro are almost a 1 point raise in compression too, as well as larger ports. lots of very restrictive engines have been helped by intake plenum and runner changes, including TB . John F's experience is the only unsuccessful one i have seen or heard. and it was partially flawed with the main element missing (but close ), the Throttle body! (being real 3.5" diameter euro)
Even worst for the USA valves and cam. Consider that they flow not in a constant pattern equal their diameter as you calculate, but in a variable ribbon pattern equal to the circumferance of the valve multiplied by the lift of the cam (which drastically reduces the available area). Then, that reduced area is further truncated by the cams duration. If we can agree that this is the case, then I think one would have to conclude that they are the principle restriction in the system by a large margin. Thats not to say improvements can't be made to the rest of the system but until that one is addressed, the others will produce very modest gains. I think that is exactly what has been shown in the real world?
I see brendan has posted while I was writing... my point to all this is that the valves and cams are whats holding our engines back, not the runner or the TB. I personally believe the AFM has larger impact than either the runners or the TB and woul bet that an improvemnt there would show better results than the euro tb and runner did, but still not as substantial as any work on the valves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to further my point, i was able to get 293hp WITH an AFM with my 5liter euro. this is right in line with the CIS and MOTEC style engines that have the entire AFM restriction removed. Dean Krenz/Stan/ DL, etc. also, look at JV 4.7 euro. It has a CIS or MAF and put out around 270 at the wheels. im sure with a 5 liter bottom end he would be around 300.
Point is, we have to improve all places in our engines. However, keep in mind , i think you are very limited with our 2.5" throttle plates on a stock US 4.7 or 4.5L. no matter what you do down low, you will get improvements, but they will probably be no where as good as if you complete the changes in the TB. its a 50% restrictor plate basically 2.5 vs 3.3". if you have seen one up close, you know what i mean.
good discussion . now, we need a dyno or a US throttle body'ed big valve hybrid.
Until then, you have my 4.7 at 243hp and scots 4.5 at 219 (running real lean and better with the fixed fuel curve.) both haveing the euro intakes and runnners.
First let me say that I'm not an expert and, I appreciate all the info you've posted. Your one of the motivators that pushes us OB for better and thats a good thing. Unfortunatly, some of what you profess has been difficult to quatify by others, especially in the 4.5 L world. I've followed most of it and to be honest I'm left with "doubts". I don't "doubt" your numbers, just the percentages of impact you have attributed to certain mods.
>>>>>>>>>>>Thanks, im glad folks are learning new ways to make HP and there are a bunch of them . I certainly dont have the answers and have only done the emperical tests that all have seen the results from. No doubt that ive gone from 175hp stock to 293hp at the wheels with the mods listed in very small increments.
I think most folks understand that many factors effect flow including pressure, area, bends and surface irregularities. However, other than pressure, all else being equal, area is likely the next principle contributer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I have the problem with the "all things being equal," as with the runners , TB and plennum things in this area are changed dramatically as far as flow.
Where I think your numbers and others expectations have gone astray is in evaluating the valves impact in the equation. In using the valves diameter (43 or 45 mm) x 2, you are not taking into account that this aperture , (unlike any other in the equation) is not fully open for flow 1) because of differences in cam lift and 2) becuase of cam duration and 3) because the valve itself obstructs laminar flow through it (unlike a throttle plate). In deed those 3 factors are more limiting to a large degree than any other single factor, including the AFM. I think that is a critical key that reconciles yours and others experiences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>your point only strengthens mine. with the valve obstructions and cam, lift, etc, the valves become even MORE of the restriction, but for some reason, changes on the intake seems to always help. on Vets in speedGT World Challenge, its amazing what they can do with valve changes and not intake, where others get intake changes and not valve changes like with the BMWs. both seem to work in varying degrees.
again, with all that restriction at the valve, ive got 43hp with only cams and intake changes. not all of that was cams, and even if it was 30hp, 13 of it would come from the intake. i hardly think a 82 euro cam is 30hp in itself, but if it is, 13hp for the intake is still substantial.
In your scenerio, the USA valves are less restrictive than the AFM and the runners while the Euro S valves are even less restrictive than both the USA TB and AFM. Forgive me for saying so but I think that is incorrect. I'd venture to say that even Euro S valves are far more of a restriction than anything in the USA intake system including the AFM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>why would you say this? becuase of the lift, duration and flow disruption of the valve itself??? Ok, i can buy a lot of that.
However, i would also ventur to say that just valve size alone doesnt buy you the increase either. in fact, the heads on a euro are almost a 1 point raise in compression too, as well as larger ports. lots of very restrictive engines have been helped by intake plenum and runner changes, including TB . John F's experience is the only unsuccessful one i have seen or heard. and it was partially flawed with the main element missing (but close ), the Throttle body! (being real 3.5" diameter euro)
Even worst for the USA valves and cam. Consider that they flow not in a constant pattern equal their diameter as you calculate, but in a variable ribbon pattern equal to the circumferance of the valve multiplied by the lift of the cam (which drastically reduces the available area). Then, that reduced area is further truncated by the cams duration. If we can agree that this is the case, then I think one would have to conclude that they are the principle restriction in the system by a large margin. Thats not to say improvements can't be made to the rest of the system but until that one is addressed, the others will produce very modest gains. I think that is exactly what has been shown in the real world?
I see brendan has posted while I was writing... my point to all this is that the valves and cams are whats holding our engines back, not the runner or the TB. I personally believe the AFM has larger impact than either the runners or the TB and woul bet that an improvemnt there would show better results than the euro tb and runner did, but still not as substantial as any work on the valves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to further my point, i was able to get 293hp WITH an AFM with my 5liter euro. this is right in line with the CIS and MOTEC style engines that have the entire AFM restriction removed. Dean Krenz/Stan/ DL, etc. also, look at JV 4.7 euro. It has a CIS or MAF and put out around 270 at the wheels. im sure with a 5 liter bottom end he would be around 300.
Point is, we have to improve all places in our engines. However, keep in mind , i think you are very limited with our 2.5" throttle plates on a stock US 4.7 or 4.5L. no matter what you do down low, you will get improvements, but they will probably be no where as good as if you complete the changes in the TB. its a 50% restrictor plate basically 2.5 vs 3.3". if you have seen one up close, you know what i mean.
good discussion . now, we need a dyno or a US throttle body'ed big valve hybrid.
Until then, you have my 4.7 at 243hp and scots 4.5 at 219 (running real lean and better with the fixed fuel curve.) both haveing the euro intakes and runnners.
05-27-2005, 05:27 PM
#32
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Attleboro, MA
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mine is an '81 and it looks like there are steel inserts on the exhaust ports... at least thats what it looks like with the manifolds off.
Your planning on shifting at 6700??? Wow, that should boost your hp figures if the hp curve doesn't start a downward slope like I'm used to seeing on 4.5 L dyno sheets above 5k. DId you drill your crank for the oiling issue?
Your planning on shifting at 6700??? Wow, that should boost your hp figures if the hp curve doesn't start a downward slope like I'm used to seeing on 4.5 L dyno sheets above 5k. DId you drill your crank for the oiling issue?
05-27-2005, 05:43 PM
#34
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Attleboro, MA
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark, I think were saying similar things from different angles. I agree theres lots of places to improve but the most direct in terms of percentages of gain, I think comes for the valve aperture. either by cam profile, valve size or ideally, both. To quantify my theory I'll use your numbers how my brain interprets them.
You mentioned 43 HP gian in your case and neither of us can divy up what came from where. My point is, even using your figure of 15HP was the intake (the balance being the cam, or combination of both... a valid point), IF the cam were not there, I doubt the intake would have given the same 15 HP gain. In other words, some of the 15HP attributed to the intake, was likely made available becuase of the cam. Now, if you had done only the cam, I agree that you would not have gained the 28 hp plus some portion of the 15, but your gain may have been 25 hp for the cam alone.
So if the cam were worth 25 by itself (not out of the question (from what I've read) and the intake were worth 13 by ieself ( questionable from what I've read) and together they were worth 43 (which I beleive), it would seem to me that the more direct contibuter for power is opening up the valve apperture first. Then the other mods will have their full effect. But, If that valve apperture continues to be the limiting factor the other mods will still provide benefits, but of only fractional value.
You mentioned 43 HP gian in your case and neither of us can divy up what came from where. My point is, even using your figure of 15HP was the intake (the balance being the cam, or combination of both... a valid point), IF the cam were not there, I doubt the intake would have given the same 15 HP gain. In other words, some of the 15HP attributed to the intake, was likely made available becuase of the cam. Now, if you had done only the cam, I agree that you would not have gained the 28 hp plus some portion of the 15, but your gain may have been 25 hp for the cam alone.
So if the cam were worth 25 by itself (not out of the question (from what I've read) and the intake were worth 13 by ieself ( questionable from what I've read) and together they were worth 43 (which I beleive), it would seem to me that the more direct contibuter for power is opening up the valve apperture first. Then the other mods will have their full effect. But, If that valve apperture continues to be the limiting factor the other mods will still provide benefits, but of only fractional value.
05-27-2005, 05:52 PM
#35
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I felt the same way when I had rebuilt my 1982. It was beautiful (IMHO), but I was bummed when during Devek days or runs here in SoCal canyons, I was out run by the S-4's and others. That is primarily why I sold it and purchased a 1991 S-4. Now, nobody runs away from me 
05-27-2005, 06:14 PM
#36
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the cams are where the bang for the buck is. I have a dyno sheet that shows an 82 US with euro intake and bigger TB...the gains shown were not worth the effort. The other scenario on this particular sheet is a US with a before and after camshaft change run...the gains above 4000 were substantial....that car ran the stock intake, throttle body and AFM but did have headers...
I'm meeting with my fabricator tomorrow and I'm going to try and pin him down on the manifold costs. They will be at least $1,300 for the set....the labor time to fabricate is very substantial. I can do the intercooler (air to air) for $1000. Two of these have been built and they look really cool up front under the bumper! It is a VERY nice piece of work and is large enough to flow out about 475 HP...maybe 500 for a short burst. Brenden...since you are running the MAP setup...you could mount two cone air cleaners for each turbo, to reduce the restrictions and then plumb back to the throttle body since you won't need a MAF or AFM...just a thought. Your CR sounds high so I would be careful with it. I like the way my car looks now...it is very stealth...the untrained eye would swear it is stock. People have issues telling where the plumbing goes! I love to watch poeple crawl over the car to figure it out!
My 81 has no exhaust port liners...the 80 does have them. Sounds like a mix and match of a pile of heads used for these builds around that time.
I'm meeting with my fabricator tomorrow and I'm going to try and pin him down on the manifold costs. They will be at least $1,300 for the set....the labor time to fabricate is very substantial. I can do the intercooler (air to air) for $1000. Two of these have been built and they look really cool up front under the bumper! It is a VERY nice piece of work and is large enough to flow out about 475 HP...maybe 500 for a short burst. Brenden...since you are running the MAP setup...you could mount two cone air cleaners for each turbo, to reduce the restrictions and then plumb back to the throttle body since you won't need a MAF or AFM...just a thought. Your CR sounds high so I would be careful with it. I like the way my car looks now...it is very stealth...the untrained eye would swear it is stock. People have issues telling where the plumbing goes! I love to watch poeple crawl over the car to figure it out!
My 81 has no exhaust port liners...the 80 does have them. Sounds like a mix and match of a pile of heads used for these builds around that time.
05-27-2005, 06:57 PM
#37
Originally Posted by John V
Mine is an '81 and it looks like there are steel inserts on the exhaust ports... at least thats what it looks like with the manifolds off.
Your planning on shifting at 6700??? Wow, that should boost your hp figures if the hp curve doesn't start a downward slope like I'm used to seeing on 4.5 L dyno sheets above 5k. DId you drill your crank for the oiling issue?
Your planning on shifting at 6700??? Wow, that should boost your hp figures if the hp curve doesn't start a downward slope like I'm used to seeing on 4.5 L dyno sheets above 5k. DId you drill your crank for the oiling issue?
I didn't drill the crank as I had planned a pan baffle - and did install one in the pan for the surge issue. At that point of deciding to drill the crank, the plans were a bit different. If the curve starts to drop off before then, then obviously I will be shifting much earlier - and set the megasquirt to limit revs whereever it would be good to stop. I just love the scream of those two valves up there. Its (IMHO) almost better then the 4v. It rips the air into shreds. When I had my auto 81 I put that 4spd into it and I had it shifting at 6500 with the headers and quite of bit of timing. Dual pipes, into one Spintech. Wow, thats was a sound you won't soon forget.
I think with the 78 cams and good control of timing with headers and the higher compression, I will get some more power up top. If I don't then I guess its still a mystery.
05-27-2005, 07:00 PM
#38
Originally Posted by Big Dave
Damn, Brendan! Just reading all that makes me tired. 
05-27-2005, 09:17 PM
#39
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Pasadena, CA, USA
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Euro intake alone is worth almost nothing on a US 4.5. Kibort probably feels bad deep in his soul for lying to the group of us about what it was worth on his car so he consistently tries to qualify it.
There are several of us who had basically no gains. Kibort likes to blame my use of the '85-'86 32v throttle body (significantly larger than the stock one, and only slightly smaller than the Euro) as the reason why I didn't gain anything. The other two people (at least) who had no results and used the Euro throttle body prove that theory wrong.
Also, keep in mind that the guy with the Weissach was trying to sell his car at the time. He didn't have any dyno sheets, either.
There are several of us who had basically no gains. Kibort likes to blame my use of the '85-'86 32v throttle body (significantly larger than the stock one, and only slightly smaller than the Euro) as the reason why I didn't gain anything. The other two people (at least) who had no results and used the Euro throttle body prove that theory wrong.
Also, keep in mind that the guy with the Weissach was trying to sell his car at the time. He didn't have any dyno sheets, either.
05-27-2005, 09:24 PM
#40
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Brendan I actually have a lot of respect for all that you have accomplished learned with your 928s. Not that it stops me from picking on you just a bit from time to time !
05-27-2005, 09:25 PM
#41
Hey Jon. It was too bad on your issue. It just goes to show that any gain is really based on the ability to tune for it. The L-jet is not going to really benefit unless it is tuned into the new setup. I hope to gain from the Euro parts (sans cams - I have the 78s) with the use of the injection and ignition tuning I can go with MS.
05-27-2005, 09:30 PM
#42
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Attleboro, MA
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brendan,
the 78 cam appears to be a decent profile... certianly better than the 80-84 USA cams. Between those cams, your head porting work and the removal of the AFM, I will be shocked if you don't put down 225-240 RWHP or better... If you don't... I quit!
the 78 cam appears to be a decent profile... certianly better than the 80-84 USA cams. Between those cams, your head porting work and the removal of the AFM, I will be shocked if you don't put down 225-240 RWHP or better... If you don't... I quit!
05-28-2005, 12:53 PM
#43
Rennlist Member
Part of the answer Jon, is in the cams as John V and i are discussing. you saw very little gains, but how much tuning did you do? Also, as John V forgot to mention, the 80 to 82 cam is different than the US 83-84 cam. much different. John V talks about this point and it could be a major contributor to some lack of the gains i saw. the two problems could be the 4.5 liter engine size and the strange cam profile of the 80-82US.
i dont "blame" the 32valve throttle body entirely, but it is quite abit smaller at the throttle plate as i remember. Plus, you have to also keep in mind, that with a larger throttle body like on the euro, timing must be changed to make up for the lack of vacuum (or reduced vacuum) at the throttle body vacuum plate due to less of a venturi. if you dont advance the timeing for WOT,and high rpms, you could have some major losses here too. I wasnt involved with your dynoing or set up so i cant tell you for sure, but what i will say, i can say with confidence that you have not maxed out the flow efficiency of a 2.5" throttle plate like on the US 78-84 TBs. how much a larger throttle body and runners depends on other factors. The fact still remains we are getting 219hp at the wheels on scots 82 with euro stuff, and i got 43hp gain with only the intake and cam change. (no heads changed or valve sizes, strictly bolt on stuff)
All that said, and as John V also mentioned, the entire system has to be looked at for the gains. a guarantee one thing, if you take scots '82 and do a full throttle dyno run, if you close the throttle even a tiny bit, it will result in a loss of max hp. (somewhere in between the 2.5" area of a stock TB plate area, and the 3.3" area of the euro TB ) the fact that there is enough vacuum in the stock TB US to create a lot of vacuum for the vacuum advance and the other smog actities, tells me a FACT that there is a pressure drop accross the TB, and quite a large one reducing this will increase mass flow and matched with fuel , increase hp. sure, many other factors, but generally, if you look at the system, fuel , spark, air and do the things I did , you will get gains. If i remember correctly, Jon, your HP output was slightly lower than normal as well and we talked about other possible issues.
I will agree, with the 4.5 liter engines, that the gains are not cut and dry like they are on the US 4.7 due to the larger displ and the different cam.
mk
i dont "blame" the 32valve throttle body entirely, but it is quite abit smaller at the throttle plate as i remember. Plus, you have to also keep in mind, that with a larger throttle body like on the euro, timing must be changed to make up for the lack of vacuum (or reduced vacuum) at the throttle body vacuum plate due to less of a venturi. if you dont advance the timeing for WOT,and high rpms, you could have some major losses here too. I wasnt involved with your dynoing or set up so i cant tell you for sure, but what i will say, i can say with confidence that you have not maxed out the flow efficiency of a 2.5" throttle plate like on the US 78-84 TBs. how much a larger throttle body and runners depends on other factors. The fact still remains we are getting 219hp at the wheels on scots 82 with euro stuff, and i got 43hp gain with only the intake and cam change. (no heads changed or valve sizes, strictly bolt on stuff)
All that said, and as John V also mentioned, the entire system has to be looked at for the gains. a guarantee one thing, if you take scots '82 and do a full throttle dyno run, if you close the throttle even a tiny bit, it will result in a loss of max hp. (somewhere in between the 2.5" area of a stock TB plate area, and the 3.3" area of the euro TB ) the fact that there is enough vacuum in the stock TB US to create a lot of vacuum for the vacuum advance and the other smog actities, tells me a FACT that there is a pressure drop accross the TB, and quite a large one reducing this will increase mass flow and matched with fuel , increase hp. sure, many other factors, but generally, if you look at the system, fuel , spark, air and do the things I did , you will get gains. If i remember correctly, Jon, your HP output was slightly lower than normal as well and we talked about other possible issues.
I will agree, with the 4.5 liter engines, that the gains are not cut and dry like they are on the US 4.7 due to the larger displ and the different cam.
mk
Originally Posted by Jon F
The Euro intake alone is worth almost nothing on a US 4.5. Kibort probably feels bad deep in his soul for lying to the group of us about what it was worth on his car so he consistently tries to qualify it.
There are several of us who had basically no gains. Kibort likes to blame my use of the '85-'86 32v throttle body (significantly larger than the stock one, and only slightly smaller than the Euro) as the reason why I didn't gain anything. The other two people (at least) who had no results and used the Euro throttle body prove that theory wrong.
Also, keep in mind that the guy with the Weissach was trying to sell his car at the time. He didn't have any dyno sheets, either.
There are several of us who had basically no gains. Kibort likes to blame my use of the '85-'86 32v throttle body (significantly larger than the stock one, and only slightly smaller than the Euro) as the reason why I didn't gain anything. The other two people (at least) who had no results and used the Euro throttle body prove that theory wrong.
Also, keep in mind that the guy with the Weissach was trying to sell his car at the time. He didn't have any dyno sheets, either.
05-28-2005, 03:24 PM
#44
Originally Posted by John V
Brendan,
the 78 cam appears to be a decent profile... certianly better than the 80-84 USA cams. Between those cams, your head porting work and the removal of the AFM, I will be shocked if you don't put down 225-240 RWHP or better... If you don't... I quit!
the 78 cam appears to be a decent profile... certianly better than the 80-84 USA cams. Between those cams, your head porting work and the removal of the AFM, I will be shocked if you don't put down 225-240 RWHP or better... If you don't... I quit!
05-28-2005, 05:25 PM
#45
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Attleboro, MA
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brendan,
No secret... I hope you get all of that and more!
I guess with the lack of results I'm used to seeing, I always temper my expectations to avoid dissappointment. I'm rooting for you but 260 RWHP would be phenominal from 4.5 liters normally aspirated! That would be 305 crank hp using 15% driveline losses. To put that in perspective, the new GM LS-2 engine program set a goal of 1hp per CID of displacement. That means that our 20 year old engines would need to be around 270 crank HP or 230 RWHP to be on the same disalcement to power ratio as one of the most advanced passenger car engines on the planet. Further, those engines are 7200 RPM which gives them an edge in peak HP production. Granted, they are doing this with cam in block technology which makes it that much more impressive but, the fact that this power level appears within reach for us is impressive.
Any idea whenyou think you'll be able do test your work?
No secret... I hope you get all of that and more!
I guess with the lack of results I'm used to seeing, I always temper my expectations to avoid dissappointment. I'm rooting for you but 260 RWHP would be phenominal from 4.5 liters normally aspirated! That would be 305 crank hp using 15% driveline losses. To put that in perspective, the new GM LS-2 engine program set a goal of 1hp per CID of displacement. That means that our 20 year old engines would need to be around 270 crank HP or 230 RWHP to be on the same disalcement to power ratio as one of the most advanced passenger car engines on the planet. Further, those engines are 7200 RPM which gives them an edge in peak HP production. Granted, they are doing this with cam in block technology which makes it that much more impressive but, the fact that this power level appears within reach for us is impressive.
Any idea whenyou think you'll be able do test your work?