whp vs engine hp

brngrhd

Member
ok so i dynoed my motor back when it was built this summer and it made 579hp now that is it in the car i took it to the rollers and at first it made 316 found the exhaust was killing it so i got different baffles and it made ~390HP with open headers it made 393 i know when it was dynoed with the baffles that made 316 the air filter cost 20whp im sure it will be more with the better flowing exhaust......

here is the question what should it be putting down? 579 through th400 3000stall nine inch 325-50-15 tires.
 
ok i know all the stuff about dynos and how they work and how they can be off..... here is what i got.... 468 4.310X4.00, dart pro-1 heads, 2.250 1.880 valves, 435hp tri-power manual secondaries, 9.97:1 ceramic coated diamond pistons, 229 236 @50 .640 lift 112 LSA, 39* timing .... does that sound like 579? if so from there to the car the timing is the same and the jetting is the same i added hooker super comp headers and an air cleaner. and like i said i know that the air filter was 20hp killer but now that im making more is it killing it that bad? or where else is my power?
 
brngrhd said:
ok i know all the stuff about dynos and how they work and how they can be off..... here is what i got.... 468 4.310X4.00, dart pro-1 heads, 2.250 1.880 valves, 435hp tri-power manual secondaries, 9.97:1 ceramic coated diamond pistons, 229 236 @50 .640 lift 112 LSA, 39* timing .... does that sound like 579? if so from there to the car the timing is the same and the jetting is the same i added hooker super comp headers and an air cleaner. and like i said i know that the air filter was 20hp killer but now that im making more is it killing it that bad? or where else is my power?


I ran the limited info thru one of my dyno software, programs and I got a rough guess at close to 470hp. not 579 , but ITS a cheap software program I use for quick guess work, it could be off, but its usually surprisingly accurate at PEAK HP, (NOT MUCH ELSE) but then if its correct your last dyno makes far more sense at its current 390hp level


viewtopic.php?f=7&t=784&p=3796#p3796
 
grumpyvette said:
brngrhd said:
ok i know all the stuff about dynos and how they work and how they can be off..... here is what i got.... 468 4.310X4.00, dart pro-1 heads, 2.250 1.880 valves, 435hp tri-power manual secondaries, 9.97:1 ceramic coated diamond pistons, 229 236 @50 .640 lift 112 LSA, 39* timing .... does that sound like 579? if so from there to the car the timing is the same and the jetting is the same i added hooker super comp headers and an air cleaner. and like i said i know that the air filter was 20hp killer but now that im making more is it killing it that bad? or where else is my power?


I ran the limited info thru one of my dyno software, programs and I got a rough guess at close to 470hp. not 579 , but ITS a cheap software program I use for quick guess work, it could be off, but its usually surprisingly accurate at PEAK HP, (NOT MUCH ELSE) but then if its correct your last dyno makes far more sense at its current 390hp level


viewtopic.php?f=7&t=784&p=3796#p3796


well what do you think? to be honest i was thinking that it was going ot be around 500hp and was like WOW when it hit 579...... the only thing is the dyno was caliberated as the strain gauge was replaced before my motor was done.
 
grumpyvette said:
http://forum.grumpysperformance.com/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=1814

Ive always felt that basing your engine hp guess work on the cars weight with you in it, and your mph in the lights at the end of the 1/4 mile, was a more valid way to measure your cars true hp
i agree with that too but that does not tell me what it makes at teh motor so how do i know if there is smoething holding the power back? ya know what im saying?
 
grumpyvette said:
the calculator I posted, is reasonably accurate
http://www.wallaceracing.com/hpcalculatorquarter.php

it gives a guess at BOTH your rear wheel and flywheel hp based on car weight and MPH , but you can just figure rear wheel hp is roughly 18% lower than flywheel hp


thanks for the calculator but here is what im saying..... it the car runs poorly and i use it it is goign to say im not making any hp if my motor did make 579 and im losing a ton some place it will not show that it will only say that my engine dyno was off not that someting else is robbing me of power.
 
ok, lets look at this rationally, YOU'VE GOT A REALLY NICE CAR THAT'S FAR FASTER THAN MOST GUYS OWN, and while its possible your engine made 579hp without the nitrous in its current configuration the PROBABILITY,In MY opinion, after having built close too a hundred BBC engines, is that it made closer to 500hp with the parts you've listed., thats still more hp than most guys will ever have.

"
468 4 bolt bbc, dart pro-1 310 runner heads, 9.97:1 compression, forged diamond ceramic coated pistons, forged eagle h beam rods, forged scat crank, arp head and main studs 229 236 @50 .640 lift 112 LSA cam factory 435hp tri-power with mechanical linkage, NOS tri-power nitrous plates, MSD digital 6 box, summit dual 12 inch fans, stewart stage 2 water pump, stewart 180* thermo, dewitts alum rad, areomotive A1000 pump, areomotive regulator, sumped stock tank. th400 built with jw ultra bell, PTC 3000 stall nitrous converter, 1350 joints front and rear on a custom drive shaft."

now if you had a solid roller cam with a duration and lift similar to this, and ran with open headers so the exhaust was not a huge restriction, and got the fuel/air ratio stable at about 12.6:1 over the whole rpm band.......IM sure your numbers will improve, but the car will also be less street freindly and probably not as fun or dependable on the street


http://www.crower.com/misc/cam_spec/cam ... &x=38&y=11

Id be much more likely to think you pulled 579hp, in fact Id be surprised if it didn,t make 575hp plus, especially if you swap to a newer intake design, but again its a trade off, in some areas

http://www.jegs.com/i/Edelbrock/350/7522/10002/-1

I LOVE DUAL QUADS AND THE OLD CLASSIC LOOK, and theres a marked flow increase over the original tri-power, with the re-designed dual quad intake

why do I say that?
well a normal BBC , with basically a dual plane intake with carbs, and that compression ratio, makes about 1.1 ft lbs of torque per cubic inch of displacement at its peak torque,and a 468bbc, with a 239 duration cam thats usually at about 4500rpm-5000rpm,the stock low rise tri-power carb set-up your running normally starts becoming restrictive at about 5000rpm, , if you made 515 ft lbs of tq at 5000rpm that equals 490hp
STILL A GREAT STREET ENGINE that will destroy tires easily,but not conductive to power over about 5000rpm with the current cam
if you used a cam like I posted, above it should raise the torque curve peak to about 5900rpm, that would result in 578hp, but adding dual quads, on the newer airgap dual quad intake to maintain the classic hot rod engine look,or a large single 4 barrel might help, but everything's a compromise in some area, just a carb tune up and removing the side pipe inserts will help
your old dyno
Scan10001.jpg

your newer chassis dyno
steveoverlay.jpg

vette151.jpg

notice your running lean, and exhaust restriction kills power
 
let me relate an old story in a highly condensed version
at one time I owned a 1965 tempest/gto clone, that I installed a dana 60 rear and stroker bbc engine into, the car was very fast , (low 12s/high 11s) this was in the late 1960s- mid 1970s and it was alot fun to drive,it had room for 5 people and a trunk, it was one of the few cars I really liked, but I was determined to build a faster car, and I got a chance too and I bought a 1968 corvette, into which I installed a 4 link rear/dana 60 and a full roll cage and the car ran in the low 10s at 137 mph, which was significantly faster than the GTO ever went, but it was never as much fun to drive and it was a bottomless money pit., and the local cops tended to follow me even when I drove like a little old lady with a wedding cake, for her daughter wedding on the passenger set would drive.
there was only room for two people and a full roll cage is a total P.I.T.A. on the street but its required on the track, and all the other track mandatory mods are a P.I.T.A. also, not much pissed me off more than some moron pulling the battery disconnect switch thats REQUIRED on race cars ,to be labeled with a big ON/OFF on your rear trunk area, as they walk by the car while your sitting at a stop light, or morons that think injector stacks on fuel injection is a great place to throw ice from their drinks..............personally I think you should be able to pepper spray jerks like that, without their having any recourse

https://store.udap.com/merchant.mvc?Scr ... ry_Code=BS


heres some info
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=898&p=3239&hilit=tempest#p3239

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=677&p=5642&hilit=+fast+enough#p5642

viewtopic.php?f=87&t=1938&p=5151&hilit=+fast+enough#p5151

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=489&p=3824&hilit=+fast+enough#p3824
 
well to be honest im not unhappy with the power at all... it is more the difference in the numbers i would like to know if it is an inaccurate engine dyno wheel dyno or is there someplace that im losing a ton of HP...... and before i go and throw the juice to it i want to know everything is right.
 
brngrhd said:
ok what happens if i go direct port on the nitrous then is the rpm air gap the one?


with your gearing and cam that in my opinion would be a great idea, you'll have the best of both worlds, provided the RPM AIR GAP INTAKES modified correctly for a shot of nitrous/fuel fog as close too directly at the intake valve as clearances allow, theres not much sense in installing a single plane intake designed for 4000rpm-8000rpm on a car geared and cammed for the 2500rpm-6000rpm power band, but direct port injected nitrous on a matched intake makes a sweet street combo, youll maintain good mid rpm torque and get killer power when the giggle gas is engauged with little chance of fuel distribution issues

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/NOS-02462NOS/?image=large
 
Back
Top