Can a 200 make 450 hp???

[drag-200stang]

A while back it was questioned whether my 200 made the 450 hp I had in my signature. I find it funny that the longer stroke 250 or custom stroke 250 is not questioned. Sure a 269 will make more torque at a lower rpm - great for street use - but a higher revving 200 will make the same horsepower. Here are some reasons:

1) The biggest restriction of the log is the valve bowl and throat. Walls are too thin to be ported out to make a huge difference.
2) Peak horsepower at 4800 for the 269 is the same cfm as a 200 at 6456 (is my math correct??). Geezer typically runs his at about that rpm.
3) The engine that we have dyno proof on (Walt's) is using a space saving, on center turbine housing (robs some power) with a faster spooling, smaller AR than what I used, there again robbing a little more power.
4) A 200 crankshaft is 20 lbs lighter. Rods are also significantly lighter (less inertial lost hp).

I ran a little less boost but I think the above should equal that out. Engine ran through the traps at 6800.

I think Walt's set up is amazing. He fixed the log's fuel distribution problems.

This is simply about the lowly 200 making the 450 hp I claimed.

There's no doubt the 250 is a stronger platform to build off of. Easy to bolt on heavy duty drive lines. It is also about 80 lbs heavier.

 

[65fall]

Sounds Legit to mee...i also have a 200ci right now i think i have about 100HP cant wait to make 200Hp without Turbo sumday

 

[fast64ranchero]

Drag, can I chime in? You might say I have a little Chassi dyno exp. well over 1000 runs, and everything we have found is as follows
you can make the same HP numbers on smaller CI or CC motors all that seems to happen is the HP moves up the RPM ladder, they don't seems to make the same torq, Torq seems to always be better with more CI or CC's I have no doubt your making HP numbers close to those I posted, maybe/prob even more, as you stated I have a street style turbo set-up that leaves room for improvement, but you forgot my engine is also limited to a single 3" exhaust that also robs power,

 

[Bort62]

I, for one, Never questioned your #'s.

And I'm one skeptical motherfucker.

 

[jamyers]

Well, since horsepower is directly tied to rpm - if you want more horsepower you can 'easily' get it from higher rpms (right until it blows itself apart)

Makes sense to lil' ol' me.

 

[drag-200stang]

Thanks, I feel a little better now.

Jamyers, with good pistons and factory C3 rods I've missed power shifts, had the engine go north of 8,000.... yes, 8,000.... had the pressure plate explode, completely disintigrating the bellhousing, blew the nose off the starter, chopped though one header pipe and ripped the ear off the transmission and block. With a little welding, a new clutch, bellhousing and starter, the engine went on to race another day. These engines won't fly apart.

 

[Funky Cricket]

with 7 mains, no they won't!

 

[jamyers]

Oh, I have no doubts at all about these engine's lower ends...in my younger years I tried hard to kill one, never succeeded.

Just pointing out that hp is directly related to rpm. Using some of your numbers for fun, I plug 537 hp and 6800 rpm into my calculator, and get 415 ft/lbs of torque. If I use that torque value, but up the rpms to the above-mentioned 8,000 rpm, you've got 632hp when you miss those shifts, and if you could rev it to 10,000 rpm, you'd have 790 hp. Now, that's an enormous assumption about the torque staying constant, but even if it drops down to 250 ft/lbs, at 10K rpm you'd have 476 hp, which is more than the 450 that somebody is questioning.

But of course, that's all just numbers fun anyways. (who wants to rev to 10K?)

 

[TCIC 300ci superbeast]

(who wants to rev to 10K?)

ricers/ imports

 

[Funky Cricket]

that's how supra's make 1K HP.. 9,000 RPM limits and 25lbs of boost on huge turbos.

Can't drive em, but you can make pretty graphs at the dyno..