Mark Anderson

I guess I read your post incorrectly. I thought you meant that it made only a little more than stock
sorry

Rob Edwards

It's a great result, and 600 crank horsepower in a 2600 lb 928 is going to be a hell of a lot of fun.

Was stuck on a plane last night, so I graphed the two plots as well, Stock vs. MS 654. That's quite a torque plateau...

Catorce

No worries my friend, i am going to carve out some time to visit you and pick up those docs. Just been slammed! Have a good thanksgiving!

Catorce

Nice work Rob!!!!!!

Carl Fausett

Thank you.

ptuomov

Mike Simard’s ITB engine made 640 hp from the rear wheels. Figure out driveline loss and it’s above 700 hp.

There may still be more to be squeezed out from this motor as well. I’m curious what camshafts from 928 MS’s catalog are in there.

Edit: This was already answered: "The cam grind we are using for this motor is our 928MS 32vR3 cames INTAKE .432" / 220 deg EXHAUST .398" / 216 deg LIFT/DURATION"

Is this on an S4 core with the same LSA of 106.5? Or some other LSA?

SeanR

Last dyno I saw of Prof Otts was 600 at the ground with that same set up, 2009 I believe. Still all impressive numbers for all.

SwayBar

Mike's was a little bigger at 7.0L too.

hacker-pschorr

Post edited....

Bigfoot928

I think Ott's was about 620 HP at the ground with a nice flat torque curve over 500 but I don't remember exact numbers.

GregBBRD

Since the increased power, on your manifold, occurs above 5,000 rpms (over the stock manifold) on a big stroker with ported heads, big valves, high compression, and camshafts.....tough to imagine this working on any smaller displacement engine, much less a stock engine. Any increased performance will be moved even higher in the rpm range, on a smaller engine.

I'm very curious why there is no data shown below 4300 rpms.....on any of the dyno results. The beauty of the 928 engine (even stroker engines) is the fantastic "mid range" torque. The fact that you lost torque below 4700 rpms, over even the stock manifold, makes me wonder what your goals were. 99.5% of the people that own 928's spend 99.5% of their time below 5,000 rpms. (Almost no one drives their cars from 5,000 to 6700 rpms....not even on the track....the gear ratios in a 928 are not suited to narrow power bands, like close ratio 911 vehicles.)

Referencing the comments on Andy G's engine....it made over 425 ft lbs from under 3,000 rpms all the way to 7000. It made over 450 ft. lbs from 3700 rpms to 7,000 rpms. It made over 500 ft.lbs from 5300 to 6300. These results are amazingly similar to your results. However, this was/is a street engine that now has over 30,000 miles on it, not a race engine! It might be worth your time to graph your manifold next to Andy's, as a direct comparison of what has been done.....many years ago.

At any rate, regardless of the actual results of your manifold, it is a beautiful "piece of art" and an outstanding effort on both your and Carl's part. In the end, since you don't intend on running this car except for show, the actual results are somewhat moot.

Congratulations!

hacker-pschorr

You've apparently never been to a vintage car race.

ptuomov

A quick rule of thumb for translating dyno graphs to how fast the car goes: Take the redline rpm (almost all engines should be shifted at or near the redline) and compute the average power in the [2/3 redline rpm, redline rpm] power band. If this engine is shifted at 6600 rpms, then that power band is [4400, 6600]. Next, compute the average power for that interval. I'm eyeballing it to be about 515hp. There aren't a lot 928s out there with 515hp average power in the [2/3,1]*redline rpm power band.

Once you're off the line, what this engine makes below 4000 rpm is almost completely irrelevant to how fast the car will be on track. (For a street car, how the car behaves under 4000 rpm is very relevant to the driving experience. But in my opinion, with torque in the 300-400 lbft down low, it's other things than power and torque that are more important to the driving experience.)

By the way, I guesstimate that by going from 90mm to 105mm throttle body, this engine would pick up about 10hp of peak power and about 5hp of average power. If you guys ever test a bigger throttle body, please report back the results!

Catorce

I think Carl stated many posts ago that the engine dyno he uses doesn't log below 4300 or something like that. In any case the omission was not intentional, at some point we'll get some chassis dyno numbers and we will all be able to tell.

We are picking the fly shyte out of the mustard here, the car is going to be stupid fast, and it is irrelevant how hard or how long it will be compaigned for, or what races it enters, none of that diminishes how fast this car will be.

And awesome.

Did I mention awesome? Unquantifiable, that metric.

GregBBRD

We are all hoping you can turn this car, which has zero track history and has never done anything, into something besides a pretty piece of jewelry.

To get into the "awesome" category, it has to run in the high teens/very low 20's at Willow. With all of the horsepower beyond what Anderson ever had, lighter weight, and all the trick stuff hung on this car, this should be a walk in the park.