Stock 200 VE?
- Thread starter Bort62
- Start date
What is the rated HP and RPM?
Or better yet dyno numbers on a stock engine since rated numbers from that era are...um...misleading
Or better yet dyno numbers on a stock engine since rated numbers from that era are...um...misleading
bigcatchdaniel555
Well-known member
mustang monthly did a dyno tune on a 200 and 289 2bbl. The 200 1bbl made 77 hp at 3100 rpm and 124 lb of torque at 2900. The 289 stock made 115hp and 200 ft pounds.
Using those numbers a rough approximation using Ray Hall's turbo calculator with boost at zero and turbo efficiency at 100% and 27°C intake temp gave me right around 56% at 3100 and 54% at 2900. Certainly nothing to write home about but it seems a bit low even for the log head..
Using the same conditions an EFI 300 gives something like 67% VE, a number which seems fairly probable
Using the same conditions an EFI 300 gives something like 67% VE, a number which seems fairly probable
No. I assumed those were either engine dyno numbers or corrected chassis dyno numbers.
Pretty easy to work out, all you need is peak torque and rpm.
e.g 237 Nm @ 2400 rpm = ~60kW
100% VE @ stoich would be =~75kW
So actual VE = 0.8
but more realistically it will be fueling a little richer at peak torque so the max expected in today's engines would be about 66kW.
e.g 237 Nm @ 2400 rpm = ~60kW
100% VE @ stoich would be =~75kW
So actual VE = 0.8
but more realistically it will be fueling a little richer at peak torque so the max expected in today's engines would be about 66kW.
Or we can run the numbers this way:
77 HP @ 3100 RPM
77 HP x 0.5 lbs of fuel / hp-hr = 38.5 lbs of fuel/hr.
Assume at WOT and full load that A:F = 12.5:1 or 481.25 lbs of air/hr.
Air has a density of approx .075 lbs/cu ft, so: 481.25 / .075 = 6416.66 cu ft/hour or 106.94 cu ft/minute which equals 184,800 cu in/min
At 100 cid intake per rev, 3100 RPM would be 310,000 cu in per minute.
VE = 184,800 / 310,000 = .596 or just under 60%
Obviously, this is an approximation because it ignored the volumetric contribution of the fuel vapor and YMMV
77 HP @ 3100 RPM
77 HP x 0.5 lbs of fuel / hp-hr = 38.5 lbs of fuel/hr.
Assume at WOT and full load that A:F = 12.5:1 or 481.25 lbs of air/hr.
Air has a density of approx .075 lbs/cu ft, so: 481.25 / .075 = 6416.66 cu ft/hour or 106.94 cu ft/minute which equals 184,800 cu in/min
At 100 cid intake per rev, 3100 RPM would be 310,000 cu in per minute.
VE = 184,800 / 310,000 = .596 or just under 60%
Obviously, this is an approximation because it ignored the volumetric contribution of the fuel vapor and YMMV
http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32577&start=0
Perhaps a more relevant dyno pull. Not stock, but a lightly modified 200.
119 hp @ 5100
143 ft-lb @ 3100
Or maybe most interesting as what a few simple modifications can do to an otherwise stock motor. I think that anyone looking for a properly sized turbo (the idea behind this whole thread) for a basically stock 200 would not object to a cam upgrade, bigger carb, and a little tuning.
Perhaps a more relevant dyno pull. Not stock, but a lightly modified 200.
119 hp @ 5100
143 ft-lb @ 3100
Or maybe most interesting as what a few simple modifications can do to an otherwise stock motor. I think that anyone looking for a properly sized turbo (the idea behind this whole thread) for a basically stock 200 would not object to a cam upgrade, bigger carb, and a little tuning.
XPC66":asc4wedp said:Gee you guys and imperial
77hp ~= 57kW
3100 rpm on 3.277 litres = 3.277 x 3100/120 = 85 l/s
85/0.868 = ~98kW at stoich
VE = 57/98 = 0.58
Is that 3100 peak torque? Because that's where the measure is.
Bloody metric system.
The torque peak was at 2900.
I was using max fuel consumption at the HP peak of 3100 under full load
What is more interesting is that by two very different methods, we came up with virtually the same number
Bort62":3np39720 said:
using my method I get 56%
using XPC66's method I think I get 64%
Still not very impressive.
No, not really. There are a few things that aren't being accounted for, however.
Parasitic losses in the engine, accessories, and drivetrain - for one. If we say 15% for drivetrain, and 5% for WP + alternator... that puts us a lot closer to what seems reasonable.
VE is directly correlated with thermal power. We have all sorts of losses and inefficiencies before it gets to the rear wheels. I'm not sure how good of an estimate of true VE we can get. We can, however, get an "effective VE" that takes all of those losses into account - but that is relatively useless for us when trying to establish compressor inlet CFM.
Parasitic losses in the engine, accessories, and drivetrain - for one. If we say 15% for drivetrain, and 5% for WP + alternator... that puts us a lot closer to what seems reasonable.
VE is directly correlated with thermal power. We have all sorts of losses and inefficiencies before it gets to the rear wheels. I'm not sure how good of an estimate of true VE we can get. We can, however, get an "effective VE" that takes all of those losses into account - but that is relatively useless for us when trying to establish compressor inlet CFM.
Similar threads
All Small Six
Looking for sources for small base 2GC
