Dyno Numbers

forgot, what is done to your motor?

Very nice numbers Will. But we'll still kick your EFI'n butt all the way back to Ontario.

Well you might. I'll just lag behind until you hairy big-chested lads blow your engines one by one and then I'll cruise past the carnage to an easy finish.

Not bad numbers though. Figure about 50% loss through the drivetrain (I saw that you left your parking brakes on...) and that's about 865 HP at the crank! Not bad!

Mark

quote:

forgot, what is done to your motor?

393 Cleve w worked iron CC heads, roller rockers (Harland?),hydraulic roller cam is not that big (Crane HR-216), 10-1 comp,Quella IR intake, FAST XFI, MSD dist and ignition
Will

Will,
I'm relatively new to this forum so don't want to hurt nobody but....last year, on your way back home from Québec, you said that you still has some ¨poutine cheese¨in your tire threads. That's make me think that, may be, you're not driving fast enough....make me think that my grand'ma probably drive faster than you....you just proove us that's not your car....

Salut Will.

Serge

quote:

Originally posted by Brutus:

Will ... last year, on your way back home from Québec, you said that you still has some ¨poutine cheese¨in your tire treads. That's make me think that, maybe, you're not driving fast enough....make me think that my grand'ma probably drive faster than you....you just prove us that's not your car ... Serge

Serge,

It's not really Will's fault. He has VERY small feet and so it is hard for him to press the accelerator pedal very hard. Fortunately when the car was on the Dyno it was a big burly guy pushing it.


Mark

Those are some impressive numbers....I just HOPE I get that kind of power out of the 393C I'm building now. How was the XFI to work with? I've sent my Weiand Xcellerator 2V off to have converted to port injection and am waiting for it to come back. I'm also waiting for a Rollmaster CS3130 to make it's way to the US. Those two things are holding up the completion of my motor.

Thanks,

Chance Dorsey

You'll need to be familiar with tuning efi or find someone who is proficient with tuning. Here in Toronto, a tuner is $150-$200/hr. It gets pretty costly, real quick.
Will

quote:

I just HOPE I get that kind of power out of the 393C I'm building now.

I've had 2 393 Cleve's now that produced near identical power. There's no magic to it. There are many recipes for quality builds on this forum and others.. Both the motors I have are totally streetable and will kick the asses of any poutine eatin' frenchie around
Will

lol, nice setup Will. How do you like the XFI? I'm putting on the previous gen FAST Classic on my car hopefully within the next month.

It's a great system. You'll just need alot of time to fine tune it.
Will

quote:

Originally posted by 4NHOTROD:
It's a great system. You'll just need alot of time to fine tune it.
Will

I put the FAST EZ EFI system on my rig, and am happy with it so far. I wrestled with an old Holley programmable system years ago on another project car, and when I saw that FAST had a system with a wide band O2 sensor and learning algorithm, I was sold.

So much easier to let the computer learn the target A/F ratios you set, rather than you adjusting the numbers.

those are some really fun numbers. I bet it pulls real hard.

G'day Will,

My name's Cam, I'm new to this site. I just had to get on here and ask you more about your engine if you don't mind. I'm building a couple of street-only 351 Clevelands here in Oz and I'll be fitting the Crane HR-216 to one of them. I can't believe you got so much power out of, what looks like, a baby cam on paper. Are you really running the HR-216? At what RPM did your motor produce peak BHP? I'm guessing they're 4V closed chambers? Any rough flow numbers etc. Assuming a drive train loss is quite low on the ZF (probably around 15%-17%) you're up around 500BHP! Awesome!
Cheers Cam

The big difference is he's running an independent runner EFI system, not a single 4 barrel carb. You won't get near those numbers with a single four barrel. Dan Jones

quote:

My name's Cam, I'm new to this site. I just had to get on here and ask you more about your engine if you don't mind. I'm building a couple of street-only 351 Clevelands here in Oz and I'll be fitting the Crane HR-216 to one of them. I can't believe you got so much power out of, what looks like, a baby cam on paper. Are you really running the HR-216? At what RPM did your motor produce peak BHP? I'm guessing they're 4V closed chambers? Any rough flow numbers etc. Assuming a drive train loss is quite low on the ZF (probably around 15%-17%) you're up around 500BHP! Awesome!

ZF loss is roughly 22% where-as a transmission loss is usually 16%.
My current motor was built by the previous owner and the cam spec was given to me.It is a small cam and my engine builder said there was no way I could get 500 hp out of that cam but I have the receipt with the part #.
The heads are well worked 4V closed chamber heads. I don't have flow #'s.
Peak HP is at 4600. Great for the street. Both my motors built the most power at that range. Motors go boom at high rpm's.
Will

Thanks for the info Will, Cheers.

> Peak HP is at 4600.

I was unable to read the legend on the graph but do you mean peak HP at
6400 RPM or peak torque at 4600 RPM.? 500 HP at 4600 RPM would be over
570 ft-lbs at that RPM and imply even more torque at a lower RPM.

> Great for the street. Both my motors built the most power at that range.
> Motors go boom at high rpm's.

Yes. Also, remember you generally shift around 500 RPM above power peak
for best average acceleration (it is the area under the curve that matters,
not peak values) so design your engine to peak 500 RPM below where you want
to shift. The best way is to calculate the RPM band between shifts and
concentrate the power there (e.g. when shifting at 6500 RPM, the engine
falls back to 4000 RPM on the shift into the next higher gear).

> ZF loss is roughly 22%

I see people claiming that but 22% of 500 HP is 110 HP. That's the power
of a small 4 cylinder engine, one that will move an entire car at over
100 MPH. If your ZF takes a small 4 cylinder engine just to spin it,
something is very wrong and I want to see the transaxle cooler you are
using to dissipate that 110 HP. There may be a 22% difference between
the same engine on a chassis dyno and an engine dyno but the transaxle
loss is only a fraction of that.

Dan Jones

Daniel,

Do you have a rough idea of which parts causes what kind of power loss?

Like:
Transaxle xx%
Drive shafts xx%
Wheel bearings xx%
etc...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
> Peak HP is at 4600.

I was unable to read the legend on the graph but do you mean peak HP at
6400 RPM or peak torque at 4600 RPM.? 500 HP at 4600 RPM would be over
570 ft-lbs at that RPM and imply even more torque at a lower RPM.

> Great for the street. Both my motors built the most power at that range.
> Motors go boom at high rpm's.

Yes. Also, remember you generally shift around 500 RPM above power peak
for best average acceleration (it is the area under the curve that matters,
not peak values) so design your engine to peak 500 RPM below where you want
to shift. The best way is to calculate the RPM band between shifts and
concentrate the power there (e.g. when shifting at 6500 RPM, the engine
falls back to 4000 RPM on the shift into the next higher gear).

> ZF loss is roughly 22%

I see people claiming that but 22% of 500 HP is 110 HP. That's the power
of a small 4 cylinder engine, one that will move an entire car at over
100 MPH. If your ZF takes a small 4 cylinder engine just to spin it,
something is very wrong and I want to see the transaxle cooler you are
using to dissipate that 110 HP. There may be a 22% difference between
the same engine on a chassis dyno and an engine dyno but the transaxle
loss is only a fraction of that.

Yes, I should have stated that the total loss between an engine dyno and a chassis dyno is 22%. Not all from the ZF
Will

quote:

Originally posted by 4NHOTROD:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
> Peak HP is at 4600.

I was unable to read the legend on the graph but do you mean peak HP at
6400 RPM or peak torque at 4600 RPM.? 500 HP at 4600 RPM would be over
570 ft-lbs at that RPM and imply even more torque at a lower RPM.

> Great for the street. Both my motors built the most power at that range.
> Motors go boom at high rpm's.

Yes. Also, remember you generally shift around 500 RPM above power peak
for best average acceleration (it is the area under the curve that matters,
not peak values) so design your engine to peak 500 RPM below where you want
to shift. The best way is to calculate the RPM band between shifts and
concentrate the power there (e.g. when shifting at 6500 RPM, the engine
falls back to 4000 RPM on the shift into the next higher gear).

> ZF loss is roughly 22%

I see people claiming that but 22% of 500 HP is 110 HP. That's the power
of a small 4 cylinder engine, one that will move an entire car at over
100 MPH. If your ZF takes a small 4 cylinder engine just to spin it,
something is very wrong and I want to see the transaxle cooler you are
using to dissipate that 110 HP. There may be a 22% difference between
the same engine on a chassis dyno and an engine dyno but the transaxle
loss is only a fraction of that.

Yes, I should have stated that the total loss between an engine dyno and a chassis dyno is 22%. Not all from the ZF
Will

I agree that there are other power losses on an engine such as the water pump, alternator and pulleys. What I question is why the 22% power loss through the ZF is the general number that seems to be used. As horsepower goes up so does the power loss and I just can't see this as being a linear number. I don't have any engine dyno numbers for my new stroker engine yet, but when this project is done, I should have both engine and chassis dyno numbers. That should give me a pretty good idea of what is happening. I have heard from that the ZF power loss is about 80 horsepower. If there are any mechanical engineers on here I would love to have this explained to me.

quote:

Originally posted by JFFR:
I agree that there are other power losses on an engine such as the water pump, alternator and pulleys. What I question is why the 22% power loss through the ZF is the general number that seems to be used. As horsepower goes up so does the power loss and I just can't see this as being a linear number. I don't have any engine dyno numbers for my new stroker engine yet, but when this project is done, I should have both engine and chassis dyno numbers. That should give me a pretty good idea of what is happening. I have heard from that the ZF power loss is about 80 horsepower. If there are any mechanical engineers on here I would love to have this explained to me.

I think it is important to understand what power terminology means in the context of rotating equipment.

Power (as in horsepower) is the relationship of amount of work done over a period of time.

Work can be defined as a mass moved a vertical distance against gravity. One pound lifted 1 foot is one lb-ft. An example of power can be one pound lifted one foot (work) in one minute: 1 lb-ft/minute (power). James Watt figured out, through experimentation, that a horse could lift 33,000 lb-ft / minute. One horsepower.

Instead of lifting mass against gravity (work), this same resistance to movement can be expressed in a rotational sense as torque.

A transmission, accessories, and internal engine friction provide resistance to rotational forces in terms of lb-ft (torque). This would be pretty much constant assuming that the gear oil is warm and at a constant temperature.

When you factor in RPM, then the amount of parasitic horsepower loss can be calculated by the formula of P = (lb-ft * rpm) / 5252. It is the formula for calculating horsepower of a rotating machine.

As you can see, power loss from a transmission and accessories cannot be expressed as a single horsepower figure or a general percentage figure. Rating the parasitic loss of a 500 hp motor and a 300 hp motor as 20% gives you a very different figure, but nothing has changed in the drivetrain. This why a general percentage figure is inaccurate.

To say that a parasitic loss is 80HP, without stating the RPM at which this loss occurs is also inaccurate. It could be 10 hp at low RPM, an 80 hp at high RPM.

What is really needed is a dyno test of an engine and transmission without the engine running. Just an electric motor turning the system and a measure of the torque it takes to turn at particular rpm. It would only be accurate to state the parasitic drivetrain loss as torque, or horsepower at a particular RPM.

Another way to do it would be to do a dynostand test of the engine only, and then a chassis dyno test after getting the engine installed in the car.

As your engine horsepower increases so will the power lost through the system.
The use of a percentage is fairly accurate & 22% would not be far off the mark.
Some cars lose more through the drive-train & other designs less.
A front engine rear wheel drive car will lose more through the drive-train due to the extra components such as the propeller shaft, (which the Pantera obviously does not have).
So working on a 500hp engine with a 22% loss you end up with 390hp at the wheels, a 110hp loss.
If you had a 600 hp motor you would end up with around 468 hp at the wheels, a 132hp loss.
The reason why more power is lost as the engines power is increased is due to friction.
A transmission will not have a set amount of frictional losses.
Loss increases as the horsepower transmitted through the transmission increases.
Imagine two gears meshing within the transmission.
One tooth is pushing against the other tooth.
As the power increases so does the load between those teeth.
More force is being applied.
Friction increases & more power is lost as heat.
(Hence the need for a transmission oil pump & cooler for high horsepower engines).
This also goes for the transmission bearings, drive shafts, upright bearings & tyres, they all see load & frictional losses.
Also remember that you are NOT producing all of your engines power if you are breaking traction & your tyres are spinning.
The engine has to be under load to produce its power & torque.
Hence the dyno to tune the engine under loaded conditions.
So as you increase the engines power all of the driveline components will be under more stress & as long as the driveline holds together the limiting factor will generally be your tyres.
Obviously you will find with more power you start to lose traction, so you fit wider & stickier tyres.
And because of this, you again lose power through the driveline because of the increased traction.
Efficiency & power lost in the drive-line is also about the components used.
CV’s are more efficient than Uni’s.
Certain types of bearings have less parasitic losses than other bearing designs as well as the type of oil being used.

regards,
Tony