Over 100bhp per 1000cc...
Discussion
scotpak said:
Not a BR hater but a sort of double agent hired by mike to get him more business 
Nah......when you start to have a jokey pop at PHers who have never even used BR, and whose only crime is to say thank you to Mike for taking time to post then I start to smell an unbalanced BR hater 
As has been noted, the whole thing is getting a bit boring
Jockman said:
Nah......when you start to have a jokey pop at PHers who have never even used BR, and whose only crime is to say thank you to Mike for taking time to post then I start to smell an unbalanced BR hater
As has been noted, the whole thing is getting a bit boring
I did apologise to the man jockman!!As has been noted, the whole thing is getting a bit boring
Didnt realise PHers were so sensitive to jokey pops. I must learn to restrain myself in the future.
Anyways, I will continue to speak my mind as I see fit. If you or others (you know who u are) feel that as a newbie, that I am stepping on their turf, then they can get stuffed. You aint getting rid of me so easily.
scotpak said:
I did apologise to the man jockman!!
Didnt realise PHers were so sensitive to jokey pops. I must learn to restrain myself in the future.
Anyways, I will continue to speak my mind as I see fit. If you or others (you know who u are) feel that as a newbie, that I am stepping on their turf, then they can get stuffed. You aint getting rid of me so easily.
Nobody's looking to get rid of anyone....it's a public forum for all to post on.Didnt realise PHers were so sensitive to jokey pops. I must learn to restrain myself in the future.
Anyways, I will continue to speak my mind as I see fit. If you or others (you know who u are) feel that as a newbie, that I am stepping on their turf, then they can get stuffed. You aint getting rid of me so easily.
It would be sad if someone were to be afraid to post a comment lest they be accused of being a fanboy. You are displaying all the hallmarks of a bully who tries to control what other people should be thinking and saying.
I suppose I now constitute a fanboy as I have disagreed with you, despite having no interest in the mechanics of a car nor having any idea what the heck Mike means.
Bulls
tters, haters and pissed posters really have no place here.Perhaps time to ignore and move on.
I always enjoy reading detailed technical explanations, from anyone who can express a thorough knowledge of their subject.
No connection with BR, but for your explanation, thank you BamfordMike.
The forecast is for good weather tomorrow. Let's get that charger disconnected, throttle pedal down, oil pressure up, and off we go. Even with only 88·7 BHP per 1000cc, it is still good fun.
HarryW said:
Good post, I asked earlier about the torque figure for the V8V is 310 a good figure as it seems a tad low to me. I realise that getting it to hold torque at higher revs is desirable for power given the direct link between the two but normal convention would be to rock the torque curve towards the higher end sacrificing low end but not ultimate peak torque.
A V8V is on my radar for a car to own but it seems that a much older and 'simpler' AJP8 in the Cerbera knocks it into a cocked hat, why?
The torque figure recorded @ 310LBF looks about right as a peak. The factory stated figure for N24 was 313LBF (425NM) @ 5000 rpm. This is the final nail in the coffin for this data. Because the torque figure is correct at 5000 rpm, how can 7500 rpm torque (therefore calculated power) be significantly up to return the 442BHP power result? as I said before, the major error is in the trans losses and I suspect the dyno load cell couldn't measure an accurate coast down.A V8V is on my radar for a car to own but it seems that a much older and 'simpler' AJP8 in the Cerbera knocks it into a cocked hat, why?
Std road car 4.3L Vantage is 302 LBF (410NM)
Std 4.7L is there or thereabouts 354 LBF (480NM)
As you say, these are all good numbers in anybodys book, problem is the weight of the Vantage. Engine power, good, but vehicle power-to-weight ratio not so, especially compared to something like a Cebera. Vanatge needed to be about 1250 Kilos or pack a much bigger engine punch for the 1650 ish Kilos she carries.
I see....
Power = Torque*rpm/5252 therefore to make 442hp @ 7500rpm you need approx 310lbs of torque at those revs too....
I'm still surprised at the relatively low torque capability of the V8V lump even in a high state of tune, what compression do they run in standard and 'race' trim?
Power = Torque*rpm/5252 therefore to make 442hp @ 7500rpm you need approx 310lbs of torque at those revs too....
I'm still surprised at the relatively low torque capability of the V8V lump even in a high state of tune, what compression do they run in standard and 'race' trim?
stevewushu said:
The car that this dyno test was done on is 100% road legal and passes the 100db test!
As far as I'm aware it is still driving around on our roads somewhere!
Don't worry it's not my car!
Does seem to be an interesting motor though. Would love to have a blast in it!
I while ago I remember discussing the same dyno chart across what appears to be the same table the photo is taken from Steve, unless you want to correct me otherwise?? The specification you say the car is actually differs significantly from the one told to me.As far as I'm aware it is still driving around on our roads somewhere!
Don't worry it's not my car!
Does seem to be an interesting motor though. Would love to have a blast in it!
Think about it, if it was a Prodrive press demo car @ 442BHP, where is the report in the media and on tinternet where Prodrive tries to market the spec, cos this would be a spec worth singing about wouldn't it?? There might be one somewhere in a little known publication because me thinks its actually from a Vantage Rally car which was NEVER a Prodrive product, it was from an independent outfit and sold in very few numbers. And if this is driveable on the road, with no error states, that is another question in itself.
Nothing changes the fact the actual wheel result recorded is 339 BHP, and calculated is 442 BHP and is dubious data to say the least.
The title of your post suggests 1000BHP per 1000cc, and whatever way you cut it, the proof you use to prove your statement is questionable - but that doesn't mean it is not possible, it just means you have to be careful what books you read.
And there's a vid of this car...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz_ZfC1czVk&sns...
4.3 vantage producing 438bhp.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz_ZfC1czVk&sns...
4.3 vantage producing 438bhp.
stevewushu said:
And there's a vid of this car...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz_ZfC1czVk&sns...
4.3 vantage producing 438bhp.
Hmmm. That's hardly "a road car." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz_ZfC1czVk&sns...
4.3 vantage producing 438bhp.
Bravo73 said:
stevewushu said:
And there's a vid of this car...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz_ZfC1czVk&sns...
4.3 vantage producing 438bhp.
Hmmm. That's hardly "a road car." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz_ZfC1czVk&sns...
4.3 vantage producing 438bhp.
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff