When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I bought my first 4 stroke dirtbike in 96....a Husaberg 501. I had decided I was old anyway and would slow down but I really wanted a Husaberg. Well it turned out I had a blast on the track and was faster than I was on my 250s. A typical Porsche makes about 30 to 50 less HP on a dynojet than what they are factory rated.....from what I've observed and measured on my cars. So add that to the 335 and you get 380 ish.
XR600 here. No more CR 250s for me.
Seeing the same engine measured at the crank on one day, then fitted to the car the next day on the chassis dyno is eye opening. I learned quickly to throw away the factory ratings. I was forced to hang the calibration weights on the engine dyno myself just to drive the point home.
XR600 here. No more CR 250s for me.
Seeing the same engine measured at the crank on one day, then fitted to the car the next day on the chassis dyno is eye opening. I learned quickly to throw away the factory ratings. I was forced to hang the calibration weights on the engine dyno myself just to drive the point home.
Anyway, whatever your reference is, 320 hp on a dynojet from a 3.8 at 6500 is considerably more than you would expect from just displacement and indicates better thermal and volumetric efficiency.
What is more important to these people is power that is linear and consistent along with a perfectly smooth idle speed, a clutch that isn't heavier than stock and the engine retaining manners.
Sounds like you read my requests.
My car is a daily driver that I want to be as reliable as possible, with improved lower and midrange torque, that I can take to the track should I decide to.
To me reliability is more important than HP.
Too bad I just open these threads, waiting to see the start of dumpster fires they become. Or the ridiculous tangents they go off on…
I would have bet the house the FSI motor thread would have started kindling up by now.
On topic. I have nothing to add, other than I’m looking at slower cars with less hp.😎
I have nothing to contribute to that thread. So I don’t.
It’s really too bad @BRS-LN can’t do the same and keep the marketing and Jake, Jake, Jake and more Jake out of threads with which it does not contribute to the topic.
Also, having been present in the FSI engine dyno cell, then seeing the same engine go into a car and onto the chassis dyno the next day, 325 at the wheels with a 996 C2 equates to just under 400 at the crankshaft, both use the same SAE J 1349 correction factors. 335 at the wheels is just over 400 at the crank.
That's a good piece of data. So roughly 17% drivetrain loss at this hp level on those dynos.
Also, having been present in the FSI engine dyno cell, then seeing the same engine go into a car and onto the chassis dyno the next day, 325 at the wheels with a 996 C2 equates to just under 400 at the crankshaft, both use the same SAE J 1349 correction factors. 335 at the wheels is just over 400 at the crank.
That's a good piece of data. So roughly 17% drivetrain loss at this hp level on those dynos.
Lots of variables there. Alignment and gearbox wear are big question marks. Nothing seems to kill rear wheel numbers like a track alignment.
Sounds like you read my requests.
My car is a daily driver that I want to be as reliable as possible, with improved lower and midrange torque, that I can take to the track should I decide to.
To me reliability is more important than HP.
This is exactly the request that I see mentioned in every application that we review as a team. Making solid power at every RPM range without needing to extend the rev limiter is both hard to accomplish, and appreciated by those that invest in FSI.
You will have to excuse me, because I havent completely formulated this but:
The figure of merit data is pretty profound: If we look at the GT3s, Ferrari, honda 2000, that that number and look at the difference between that and the M96 engines, there is a little, but not a huge room for improvement.
In addition I would think that claims to make naturally aspirated engines a whole lot more powerful would be questionable. Of course given reliability drivability and peak rpms.
Even the vette is significantly lower. The idea that someone with a low budget could best the best engine builders in the world is silly.
Now there is absolutely room for more reliability by addressing poor engineering decisions, see IMS and Locasil.
Although there may be a marketing logic for de tuned lower models, the idea that the engineers of these cars left easy horsepower on the table is absurd.
it's like that saying you can have good, fast or cheap, pick 2. Hp and drivability, or emissions or durability or cheap. You can't have them all.
If one is interested:
The Secret Horsepower Race: Western Front Fighter Engine Development https://a.co/d/gpX7sbv
A couple comments based on the two FSI dynojet plots in the thread. If I estimate crank HP based on what I've seen you get the Figure of Merit below. It becomes evident these are torque monsters. I wish I had the formula because I'd love to have one....but I can't afford to buy one. They hold peak horsepower for so long its hard to assign an rpm to it!
Can you take the crank estimated HP talk to another thread, it has no place here - read the OP.
Again… people talking about Hp numbers with nothing to back it up… exactly what I didn’t want this thread to turn into.
Thanks.
Maybe you missed the logic whilst having a titty baby fit. If you know a typical 996 delivers 250 to 280 RWHP on a dynojet, You subtract that number from 300 or 320 and you get some 40 to 50 HP. That means you can add 40 to 50 HP to a similar car's RWHP to arrive at crank HP. This is because the losses are similar. It's a pretty good "estimate". BTW, you should be very impressed with the two FSI, Dynojet measurements
Again - take your crank HP estimates somewhere else.
It’s pretty simple, someone of your analytical prowess should easily understand why it doesn’t fit here.
The thread is about actual results people are seeing… ACTUAL RESULTS.
Jeesh, this place sucks sometimes, it’s totally fine for vendors and their sycophants to trash a thread… cause they don’t like that the data reflects you can come damn close to recreating their output with common bolt ons for a very small percentage of the cost. I get it, must be tough after spending so much time tying to keep that info in the dark.
So…. OBFUSCATE….. throw a lot of words, estimates, etc…. All to justify the value of something which cannot be justified as a value conventionally, using simple chassis dyno graphs that are easily understood.
Your engine stand graphs, they’re great for development - they mean nothing to me where I live, in the real world, on a road.
09-16-2022, 10:27 AM
