SharkFan

Thanks Z.

John..

Lag,

The power was "measured" with the use of a G-Tech Pro, 310 to the road to be precise. Rest assured, the day is coming....and it will yield positive results. Care to make more speculations on how poor flowing or little power the car will make? I'd be interested in hearing them as well as making note of new Lag-Algebra equations and assumptions. As I recall, the last estimate you made on 8 lbs was 317 at the crank. Do you really think the G-Tech could be off over 40 HP? I don't.

Oh Lag, perhaps I should send you a copy of the page out of an old Turbocharging book I have showing two simple log style manifolds on a twin turbo big displacement Mopar that made 800 plus crank horsepower. But we all know those Briggs and Stratton type of manifolds can't possibly flow any air...now don't we? Afterall you are Rennlist's resident guru on forced induction.

For the record, why not tell the entire Rennlist audience how much power this car makes. List all assumptions, then I'll get you the measured results. Afterall, your HP numbers are always spot on, right?

Z

I sure do. Unless you've got all of the conditions exactly right it will be off, and even if conditions are right, the numbers aren't corrected. I had the original G-Tech and now have the newer model. The time measurements are probably okay for back to back comparisons done on the same road, on the same day, with the same weather, and going in the same direction, but that's about it. The horsepower and torque numbers are WAY too inaccurate, and in my opinion are more of a marketing tool that was added on because it was pretty easy to do it to the existing devices. In playing around I was able to show my completely stock, normally aspirated, 2 liter, 180K+ mile, old Toyota beater repeatedly making over 1,600 rwhp. (Yes, that's really one thousand six hundred rear wheel horsepower, and not a typo) Torque was around 1,800 rwft/lbs.

Lagavulin

I’ll tell you what little buddy, I already did this for you twice before, and even provided a secondary source to verify the theory. I guess because you still can’t figure out how to do the ‘simpletonistic’ calcs, you want me to go through them once again.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t have the time, however, but they are in one of these two links:

https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...t=supercharger
https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...t=supercharger

Well John, that’s just you! Aren’t you the same person who said at one time because you did some tuning of some sort that you ‘unleashed a hidden 30 to 50 horsepwer’? Just where was it 'hidden'? Now that’s funny! I’m not even going to ask you if you dyno-ed it as we already know the answer.

I think the key term here is 'old'. Did you not stop and consider for one nanosecond how much more horsepower they would have put out if they had a good free-flowing exhaust manifold? I guess not, and is the reason why you continue to post the things that you do.

I’m sorry to disappoint you, but for centrifugal superchargers, that would be Tim Murphy; I simply ride on his coattails. And for positive displacement blowers, that would be Andy K.

Look in the links provided above.

They are pretty close. I predicted 499 rwhp prior to my car dyno-ing, and I was off by +6 rwhp with Tim’s. Hmm, that means I probably over-estimated yours too; sorry to get your hopes up little buddy!

No wonder you're always trying to get me to race you!

BC

Hey Lag - Any math on my adding .6liters via a 106mm bore, with no more stroke, at 9:1?

I suppose from my limited math knowledge, that we could decontruct the 316 that the stock car produces with what it has, and then redo it for the .6 more liters? Is that even possible?

I'm so excited that I have a solid plan that does not include shipping my motor half way across the country to a town that we used to visit whilst I was in college (in Green bay by the way) so that we could find the easier chi....

Wait. This is about cars. Um, we used to drive down in my 86 conversion van, (with the fold down bed in the back) and introduce ourselves as the boys from the all-men's college up north and the girls would just fall all over us and...

Wait.

So, yeah, Lag, how about that math?

John..

Well Lag, you must be right. I guess the old girl only makes 317 at the crankshaft.

Sorry I ever questioned your math because it must be right.

Lagavulin

Alrighty then.

Let’s start as usual doing the NA crank hp; it will be less due to the 9.0:1 cr. Assume a 4% loss of hp per point of compression:

New NA HP = 316 crank hp x .96 = 303.4 crank hp

Now let’s figure the hp per liter (hp/L) with the lowered cr:

hp/L = 303.4 hp / 5.0L = 60.7 hp/L

Since we now ‘know’ what the 9:1 engine makes per liter, we can now speculate the hp of a 5.6L engine with this configuration:

New HP = (hp/L) x (# of Liters) = (60.7 hp/L) x (5.6L) = 339.9 crank hp

It’s not my math; it’s Corky’s and A. Graham Bell’s. Go whine and complain to them if you don’t like the results. It just reaffirms once again that you have absolutely no idea what’s going on forced induction-wise or else you would figure it out for yourself.

Old & New

What did you do, add a extra "0" onto the weight?

Z

The vehicle weight is just one of the things that can cause the G-Tech horsepower results to be inaccurate. I definitely put a LOT more faith in the times that the G-Tech measures than the power numbers.

My old Toyota the ultimate sleeper? I sure don't think so!