Test Results - Does10s (dyno)

I can believe those numbers. when you are forcing 17psi in a motor with a mild cam you get some big TQ numbers. (I think with around 20psi on a 250 flowing well at iron head specs gives around 600 ft# on a simulator in ideal conditions) since turbo cars have mild cams they will produce alot of torque down low esp when you really huff on them.
 
I understand, but I would like to see the graph to see what is really going on.

I'm not making accusations or anything - I am just making an observation based on previous dyno experience.
 
Does10s":2ph203ru said:
Our Air/fuel ratio was fairly stable at 11:1 running nothing but E85. So I'm going to reduce the jets a little to lean it just a bit. This should help pick up a few more HP.

Hi Will,
How was the Dyno's wideband interpreting A/F ratios?
Some of my friends were discussing E85's stoich numbers and the conversions involved. E85's stoich is supposed to be 9.85/1, and rich/best torque at 8.05/1.
Was the sensor reading exhaust gasses and converting to gasoline figures?
Rick
 
Thats a great point, rick - Altho if He was really running that lean I would have expected there to be some pretty serious problems.

I do doubt the wideband output would be compensated for the E85 however.
 
Yes the Dyno's Innovate O2 was set for gasoline. I should've had him swap it to indicate Lambda.

If I look at my Log files from our own Innovate LM-1, and switch it to the E85 scales, then our A/F is about 6.8:1. A little rich!

I'm prefering to use the Lambda number for this.
The Lambda number is 1.0 for the gasoline Stoich. .82 is supposed to be Stoich for E85.
I'm shooting for .75 Lambda under boost.

Will
 
turbo_fairlane_200":xkscvxml said:
so are you guys going to look for a cam grind to push the powerband up a little higher?

George, at Clay Smith, is going to do a custom ground solid lifter cam in the next week or two.
 
Bort62":usa1owja said:
Will,

I would like to know at what RPM you are actually seeing as the stall speed of your torque converter.

I think you may have some torque multiplications effects going on - Ill assume it is a non-locking converter?

500 ft lbs at ~2500 is slightly rediculous. Back when I was in the camaro world we used to see this alot with unrealistically high torque below the converters stall speed due to its viscious coupling torque multiplication. you had to disregard those numbers and look at the charts second torque peak for a realistic evaluation.

I would expect to see a huge torque spike leadig up to your stall speed, and then see it falling off sharply as the converter actually started to engage.

Could you post the graph?

Ian,
I agree with you on the stall speed issue and chassis dynos. And to your point, the chart does fall off after the converter stall speed.
The 502 ft/lbs. is definately debatable, but the power and torque differences between the Log head and the Aluminum head is not. And that was more my point. Also as you probably know, it's not the peak numbers that move the car, it's the area under the curve.

Our converter stalls almost exactly at 3000 rpms. It's a Hughes 3500.
We still made 405 ft/lbs. at 4000rpm where we were definately "on the converter".
Later,
Will
 
Okay, that makes a lot more sense to me. I only bring it up because people seem to fixate on numbers like that. I've seen basically stock L98 camaros with a vigilante converter crank out over 700 ft lbs below the stall speed on the dyno. I've then seen the owner go out and brag about 220 Hp and 700 ft-lbs of torque - just trying to keep it real here. Regardless, a true 405 ft lbs @ 4000 RPM is pretty impressive for one of these little motors.

And, as you say - what really matters is the integral of horsepower between your lower shift point and your upper power peak.

That's really the best way to figure out improvement. People like to make cute little comments about how torque wins races, but it really doesnt. At the end of the day horsepower is what really matters because horsepower is a measure of the potential work that the engine can do (torque is a measure of the force it creates). Gearing a car appropriately to make use of the torque it does make is what makes it fast, and the way you measure how effective that is in horsepower.
 
I also want to say that I find it interesting that your power peak is so low - given the known flow numbers for that head.

It leads me to belive that there is a LOT left in that head with some more cam. What is the duration @ .50 of the cam you are running now ?
 
Im not suprised by the power numbers.

There is a car that shows up every once in awhile in a certain magazine dedicated to late model Mustangs.

The car is called Shiny Avenger and runs a highly modified 2.3L turbo.

The best numebrs I have seen were IIRC right at 423hp and 412 ft lbs of torque. That was with a 5 speed and IIRC 26lbs of boost.

The 250 Will and Kelly are running has 110 moer cubes, 2 more cylinders and a consideably longer stroke. Only natural it should produce similar power levels per cubic inch as the 2.3L when the 250 has the FSPP head.

If the high end 2.3L's are any indicator then there is a considerable amount of power still to emerge.
 
Bort62":2lj1jbr6 said:
It leads me to belive that there is a LOT left in that head with some more cam. What is the duration @ .50 of the cam you are running now ?

Our current cam is the ClassicInlines 274S grind. @.050" lift, the duration is 224*. We have the 110* LSA version.

I totally agree that more cam is in order! According to AZCoupe's post above, there's one already on order! Bitchin!

Later,
Will
 
Ha, I love it that Bitchin' makes it through the nanny.

224 @ .50 is a decently large cam, but not as big as I would expect to see in a 11 second card.

Is it single pattern ?
 
Bort62":7v7cdupq said:
Is it single pattern ?

Yup!
Here's the basic specs from Mike website.

PN: adv.dur. - dur. @ .050 - I/E Lift - LSA - RPM range
274S: 274/274 - 224/224 - .450/.450 - 110* - 1800-5400

Later,
Will
 
Hmm, thats a fairly "old fashioned" grind... I wonder what the ramp angles etc look like.

I expect big things out of a new cam - any idea on what the specs for it are ?
 
No new updates on the cam. Haven't felt the need to try and go any faster because we're already to fast for the NHRA safety regulations!

But, we are currently installing a roll bar in Kelly's car so she'll be legal down to 9.99.

The roll bar might be done this weekend.

Later,
Will
 
Does10s":3i5f22gp said:
Haven't felt the need to try and go any faster because we're already to fast for the NHRA safety regulations
Later,
Will
Fast enough already? Well, if you're not gonna really use that head, you could ship it here! :p :eek:
 
Will, have you put the new balancer on yet?gonna need that too LOL!OH also a tranny shield.
 
Ya, Ya, Ya......I know about the shields and balancer. :D

I have the very custom aluminum, serpentine belt balancer already, just need to install it. Along with a new matching alternator.
The tranny shield is another story. I have one from my old C4 but I don't think that it'll fit in the tranny tunnel. I know for a fact that the flexplate shield won't fit without cutting the firewall. CSI makes one that's composite and much closer to the tranny....but it's $300! :shock:

I need to read the rule book again tonight.

So from where we are now, it looks like to get the car to legally run 10's, will cost us just over $1000! :shock: And it'll add around 90lbs. to the car!
Anybody want to donate to the cause?
Later,
Will
 
Back
Top